Chubb Ltd 10-K 2010
Documents found in this filing:
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009
For the transition period from to
Commission File No. 1-11778
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
Zurich, Switzerland CH-8001
(Address of principal executive offices, Zip Code)
+41 (0)43 456 76 00
(Registrants telephone number, including area code)
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. YES x NO ¨
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act. YES ¨ NO x
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter periods that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. YES x NO ¨
Indicate by checkmark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). YES x NO ¨
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of the registrants knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference into Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. ¨
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of large accelerated filer, accelerated filer and smaller reporting company in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):
Large accelerated filer x Accelerated filer ¨
Non-accelerated filer ¨ (Do not check if a smaller reporting company) Smaller reporting company ¨
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act) YES ¨ NO x
The aggregate market value of voting stock held by non-affiliates as of June 30, 2009 (the last business day of the registrants most recently completed second fiscal quarter), was approximately $15 billion. For the purposes of this computation, shares held by directors and officers of the registrant have been excluded. Such exclusion is not intended, nor shall it be deemed, to be an admission that such persons are affiliates of the registrant.
As of February 23, 2010, there were 336,557,967 Common Shares par value CHF 31.88 of the registrant outstanding.
Documents Incorporated By Reference
Certain portions of the registrants definitive proxy statement relating to its 2010 Annual General Meeting of Shareholders are incorporated by reference in Part III of this report.
ACE LIMITED INDEX TO 10-K
The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 provides a safe harbor for forward-looking statements. Any written or oral statements made by us or on our behalf may include forward-looking statements that reflect our current views with respect to future events and financial performance. These forward-looking statements are subject to certain risks, uncertainties, and other factors that could, should potential events occur, cause actual results to differ materially from such statements. These risks, uncertainties, and other factors (which are described in more detail elsewhere herein and in other documents we file with the SEC) include but are not limited to:
developments in global financial markets, including changes in interest rates, stock markets, and other financial markets, increased government involvement or intervention in the financial services industry, the cost and availability of financing, and foreign currency exchange rate fluctuations (which we refer to in this report as foreign exchange), which could affect our statement of operations, investment portfolio, financial position, and financing plans;
general economic and business conditions resulting from volatility in the stock and credit markets and the depth and duration of recession;
losses arising out of natural or man-made catastrophes such as hurricanes, typhoons, earthquakes, floods, climate change (including effects on weather patterns, greenhouse gases, sea, land and air temperatures, sea levels, rain and snow), or terrorism which could be affected by:
the number of insureds and ceding companies affected;
the amount and timing of losses actually incurred and reported by insureds;
the impact of these losses on our reinsurers and the amount and timing of reinsurance recoverable actually received;
the cost of building materials and labor to reconstruct properties following a catastrophic event; and
complex coverage and regulatory issues such as whether losses occurred from storm surge or flooding and related lawsuits;
infection rates and severity of pandemics and their effects on our business operations and claims activity;
actions that rating agencies may take from time to time, such as financial strength or credit ratings downgrades or placing these ratings on credit watch negative or the equivalent;
global political conditions, the occurrence of any terrorist attacks, including any nuclear, radiological, biological, or chemical events, or the outbreak and effects of war, and possible business disruption or economic contraction that may result from such events;
the ability to collect reinsurance recoverable, credit developments of reinsurers, and any delays with respect thereto and changes in the cost, quality, or availability of reinsurance;
actual loss experience from insured or reinsured events and the timing of claim payments;
the uncertainties of the loss-reserving and claims-settlement processes, including the difficulties associated with assessing environmental damage and asbestos-related latent injuries, the impact of aggregate-policy-coverage limits, and the impact of bankruptcy protection sought by various asbestos producers and other related businesses and the timing of loss payments;
judicial decisions and rulings, new theories of liability, legal tactics, and settlement terms;
the effects of public company bankruptcies and/or accounting restatements, as well as disclosures by and investigations of public companies relating to possible accounting irregularities, and other corporate governance issues, including the effects of such events on:
the capital markets;
the markets for directors and officers and errors and omissions insurance; and
claims and litigation arising out of such disclosures or practices by other companies;
uncertainties relating to governmental, legislative and regulatory policies, developments, actions, investigations and treaties, which, among other things, could subject us to insurance regulation or taxation in additional jurisdictions or affect our current operations;
the actual amount of new and renewal business, market acceptance of our products, and risks associated with the introduction of new products and services and entering new markets, including regulatory constraints on exit strategies;
the competitive environment in which we operate, including trends in pricing or in policy terms and conditions, which may differ from our projections and changes in market conditions that could render our business strategies ineffective or obsolete;
acquisitions made by us performing differently than expected, our failure to realize anticipated expense-related efficiencies or growth from acquisitions, or the impact of acquisitions on our pre-existing organization;
risks associated with our re-domestication to Switzerland, including reduced flexibility with respect to certain aspects of capital management and the potential for additional regulatory burdens;
the potential impact from government-mandated insurance coverage for acts of terrorism;
the availability of borrowings and letters of credit under our credit facilities;
the adequacy of collateral supporting funded high deductible programs;
changes in the distribution or placement of risks due to increased consolidation of insurance and reinsurance brokers;
material differences between actual and expected assessments for guaranty funds and mandatory pooling arrangements;
the effects of investigations into market practices in the property and casualty (P&C) industry;
changing rates of inflation and other economic conditions, for example, recession;
the amount of dividends received from subsidiaries;
loss of the services of any of our executive officers without suitable replacements being recruited in a reasonable time frame;
the ability of our technology resources to perform as anticipated; and
managements response to these factors and actual events (including, but not limited to, those described above).
The words believe, anticipate, estimate, project, should, plan, expect, intend, hope,, feel, will likely result, or will continue, and variations thereof and similar expressions, identify forward-looking statements. You are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which speak only as of their dates. We undertake no obligation to publicly update or review any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.
General Development of Business
ACE Limited is the Swiss-incorporated holding company of the ACE Group of Companies. ACE opened its business office in Bermuda in 1985 and continues to maintain operations in Bermuda. ACE Limited, which is headquartered in Zurich, Switzerland, and its direct and indirect subsidiaries (collectively, the ACE Group of Companies, ACE, the Company, we, us, or our) is a global insurance and reinsurance organization, serving the needs of commercial and individual customers in more than 140 countries and jurisdictions. We serve the P&C insurance needs of businesses of all sizes in a broad range of industries. We also provide specialized insurance products such as personal accident, supplemental health, and life insurance to individuals in select countries. Our reinsurance operations include both P&C and life companies. At December 31, 2009, ACE had total assets of $78 billion and shareholders equity of $19.7 billion.
We have grown our business through increased premium volume, expansion of product offerings and geographic reach, and acquisition of other companies. On April 1, 2008, ACE acquired all of the outstanding shares of Combined Insurance Company of America (Combined Insurance) and certain of its subsidiaries from Aon Corporation for $2.56 billion. Combined Insurance is an underwriter and distributor of specialty supplemental accident and health insurance products targeted to middle-income consumers and small businesses in North America, Europe, Asia Pacific, and Latin America. ACE recorded the Combined Insurance acquisition using the purchase method of accounting. Our consolidated operating results include the results of Combined Insurance from April 1, 2008.
At December 31, 2009, there were approximately 15,000 employees in the ACE Group of Companies. We believe that employee relations are satisfactory.
For most of the commercial lines of business that we offer, insureds typically use the services of an insurance broker or agent. An insurance broker acts as an agent for the insureds, offering advice on the types and amount of insurance to purchase and also assisting in the negotiation of price and terms and conditions. We obtain business from the local and major international insurance brokers and typically pay a commission to brokers for any business accepted and bound. Loss of all or a substantial portion of the business provided by one or more of these brokers could have a material adverse effect on our business. In our opinion, no material part of our business is dependent upon a single insured or group of insureds. We do not believe that the loss of any one insured would have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations and no one insured or group of affiliated insureds account for as much as 10 percent of our consolidated revenues.
Competition in the insurance and reinsurance marketplace is substantial. Competition varies by type of business and geographic area. Competitors include other stock companies, mutual companies, alternative risk sharing groups (such as group captives and catastrophe pools), and other underwriting organizations. These companies sell through various distribution channels and business models, across a broad array of product lines, and with a high level of variation regarding geographic, marketing, and customer segmentation. We compete for business not only on the basis of price, but also on the basis of availability of coverage desired by customers and quality of service. Our ability to compete is dependent on a number of factors, particularly our ability to maintain the appropriate financial strength ratings as assigned by independent rating agencies. Our strong capital position and global platform affords us opportunities for growth not available to smaller, less diversified, or damaged insurance companies. Refer to Segment Information for competitive environment by segment.
Trademarks and Trade Names
We use various trademarks and trade names in our business. These trademarks and trade names protect names of certain products and services we offer and are important to the extent they provide goodwill and name recognition in the insurance industry. We use commercially reasonable efforts to protect these proprietary rights, including various trade secret and trademark laws. One or more of the trademarks and trade names could be material to our ability to sell our products and services. We have taken appropriate steps to protect our ownership of key names and we believe it is unlikely that anyone would be able to prevent us from using names in places or circumstances material to our operations.
We make available free of charge through our website (www.acelimited.com, under Investor Information / Financial Reports or Investor Information / SEC Section 16 Filings) our annual report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with, or furnish it to, the SEC.
We also make available free of charge through our website (under Investor Information / Corporate Governance) our Corporate Governance Guidelines, our Code of Conduct, and Charters for the Committees of our Board of Directors (the Board). These documents are also available in print to any shareholder who requests them from our Investor Relations Department by:
Telephone: (441) 299-9283
Facsimile: (441) 292-8675
We also use this website as a means of disclosing material, non-public information and for complying with our disclosure obligations under SEC Regulation FD (Fair Disclosure). Accordingly, investors should monitor the Investor Relations portion of our website, in addition to following our press releases, SEC filings, and public conference calls and webcasts. The information contained on, or that may be accessed through, our website is not incorporated by reference into, and is not a part of, this report.
We operate through the following business segments: Insurance North American, Insurance Overseas General, Global Reinsurance, and Life.
The following table sets forth an analysis of net premiums earned by segment for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008, and 2007.
Additional financial information about our segments, including net premiums earned by geographic area, is included in Note 17 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, under Item 8.
Insurance North American
The Insurance North American segment comprises our operations in the U.S., Canada, and Bermuda. This segment, which accounted for 43 percent of our 2009 consolidated net premiums earned, includes the operations of ACE USA (including ACE Canada), ACE Westchester, ACE Bermuda, ACE Private Risk Services, and various run-off operations:
ACE USA, our retail operating division, provides a broad array of P&C, accident and health (A&H), and risk management products and services to a diverse group of commercial and non-commercial enterprises and consumers. ACE USA is this segments largest operation and represented approximately 69 percent of Insurance North Americans net premiums earned in 2009.
ACE Westchester specializes in the North American wholesale distribution of excess and surplus P&C, environmental, professional, and inland marine products in addition to crop insurance in the U.S.
ACE Bermuda provides commercial insurance products on an excess basis to a global client base, covering exposures that are generally low in frequency and high in severity.
ACE Private Risk Services provides personal lines coverages (e.g. homeowners and automobile) for high net worth individuals and families in North America, as well as provides recreational marine coverage for yachts and boats.
The run-off operations include Brandywine Holdings Corporation (Brandywine), Commercial Insurance Services, residual market workers compensation business, pools and syndicates not attributable to a single business group, and other exited lines of business. Run-off operations do not actively sell insurance products, but are responsible for the management of existing policies and settlement of related claims.
Products and Distribution
ACE USA primarily distributes its insurance products through a limited number of retail brokers. In addition to using brokers, certain products are also distributed through channels such as general agents, independent agents, managing general agents (MGA), managing general underwriters, alliances, affinity groups, and direct marketing operations. These products include general liability, excess liability, property, workers compensation, commercial marine, automobile liability, professional lines (D&O and E&O), medical liability, aerospace, and A&H coverages, as well as claims and risk management products and services. ACE USA has also established internet distribution channels for some of its products.
ACE USAs on-going operations are organized into distinct business units, each offering specialized products and services targeted at specific niche markets:
ACE Risk Management offers a wide range of customized casualty products to respond to the needs of mid-size to large companies, including national accounts, irrespective of industry. These programs are designed to help insureds address the significant costs of financing and managing risk for workers compensation and general and auto liability coverages. A variety of program structures are offered to support each clients risk financing needs including: large deductible, captives, third-party rent-a-captives, funded deductibles, paid or incurred loss retrospective plans, and net present value and other risk financing structures, including a prospective close-out product. We also underwrite assumed loss portfolio contracts in which insured loss events have occurred prior to the inception of the contract when the contract carries the requisite amount of insurance risk transfer. These contracts can cause significant variances to premiums, losses and loss expenses, and expense ratios in the years in which they are written.
ACE Global Underwriting Group, specializing in global programs and specialty coverages, provides comprehensive risk management programs and services to mid-size to large U.S.-based companies, not-for-profit, and government entities. The groups key products include global property, corporate risk property, inland marine, foreign casualty, commercial marine, energy, and aerospace.
ACE Casualty Risk offers specialty casualty products to a broad range of customers, ranging from small, local businesses to the large, multinational clients. Key coverages offered by ACE Casualty Risk include umbrella and excess liability, environmental risk for commercial and industrial risks, and wrap-up programs written on a loss-sensitive basis, protecting contractors and project sponsors with multi-risk coverage on large single- and multi-location construction projects. Small to mid-size businesses can purchase workers compensation coverage through this units internet-based ACE Completesm product.
ACE Professional Risk provides management liability and professional liability (D&O and E&O), as well as, surety and kidnap & extortion products that are designed to meet the needs of our insureds.
ACE Canada (ACE USAs Canadian operations) offers a broad range of P&C products as well as life and A&H coverage. ACE Canada specializes in providing customized products to commercial and industrial clients as well as to groups and associations, operating nationally or internationally.
ACE Accident & Health works with employers, travel agencies, and affinity groups to offer a variety of accident and other supplemental insurance programs. Key products include Employee Benefit Plans (basic and voluntary accidental death and dismemberment, limited medical insurance for vision, dental and prescription drugs), occupational accident, student accident, and worldwide travel accident and global medical programs. With respect to products that include supplemental medical and hospital indemnity coverages, we typically pay fixed amounts for claims and are therefore, insulated from rising health care costs. ACE Accident & Health also provides specialty personal lines products, including credit card enhancement programs (identity theft, rental car collision damage waiver, trip travel, and purchase protection benefits), and disaster recovery programs distributed through affinity groups.
ACE Medical Risk offers a wide range of liability products for the healthcare industry only through licensed excess and surplus lines brokers. Products include primary coverages for professional liability and general liability for selected types of
medical facilities, excess/umbrella liability for medical facilities, primary and excess coverages for products liability for biotechnology and specialty pharmaceutical companies, and liability insurance for human clinical trials.
ESIS Inc. (ESIS), ACE USAs in-house third-party claims administrator, performs claims management and risk control services for domestic and international organizations that self-insure P&C exposures. These services include comprehensive medical managed care, integrated disability services, and pre-loss control and risk management services. Additional insurance-related services are offered by ESISs Recovery Services International, which provides salvage and subrogation and health care recovery services. ESISs services are available through a preferred relationship with ACE Risk Management or separately for those clients that select insurance and claims management services independently. The operating results for ESIS are included in Insurance North Americans administrative expenses.
ACE Westchester offers wholesale distribution of excess and surplus property, inland marine, casualty, professional lines, and environmental liability products. Through its Program division, ACE Westchester also provides coverage for agriculture business and specialty programs, writing a variety of commercial coverages through program agents, including sports/leisure activities, farm, and crop/hail insurance. We write crop insurance business throughout the U.S. through Rain and Hail L.L.C., an MGA. For more information, refer to Crop Insurance, under Item 7.
ACE Bermuda targets Fortune 1000 companies and underwrites exposures that are generally low-frequency, high-severity on an excess of loss basis. Its principal lines of business are excess liability, professional lines, excess property, and political risk, the latter being written on a subscription basis by Sovereign Risk Insurance Ltd. (Sovereign), a wholly owned managing agent. ACE Bermuda accesses its clients primarily through the Bermuda offices of major, internationally recognized insurance brokers.
ACE Private Risk Services provides specialty coverages including homeowners, automobile, valuables, umbrella liability, and recreational marine insurance for affluent individuals and families in North America. ACE Private Risk Services products are distributed through independent regional agents and brokers.
ACE USA and ACE Westchester compete against a number of large, national carriers as well as regional competitors in certain territories. The markets in which they compete are subject to significant cycles of fluctuating capacity and wide disparities in price adequacy. We strive to offer superior service, which we believe has differentiated us from our competitors. The ACE USA and ACE Westchester operations pursue a specialist strategy and focus on market opportunities where we can compete effectively based on service levels and product design, while still achieving an adequate level of profitability. A competitive advantage is also achieved through ACE USAs innovative product offerings and our ability to provide multiple products to a single client due to our nationwide local presence. An additional competitive strength of all our domestic commercial units is the ability to deliver global products and coverage to customers in concert with our Insurance Overseas General segment. ACE USA has grown, in part, from the leveraging of cross-marketing opportunities with our other operations to take advantage of our organizations global presence. ACE Bermuda competes against international commercial carriers writing business on an excess of loss basis. ACE Private Risk Services competes against insurance companies of varying sizes that sell products through various distribution channels, including through the Internet.
Insurance Overseas General
The Insurance Overseas General segment, which accounted for 39 percent of 2009 consolidated net premiums earned, writes a variety of insurance coverage including P&C, professional lines, marine, energy, aviation, political risk, specialty consumer-oriented products, and A&H. Insurance Overseas General comprises ACE International, our retail business serving territories outside the U.S., Bermuda, and Canada; the international A&H and life business of Combined Insurance; and the wholesale insurance business of ACE Global Markets, our London-based excess and surplus lines business that includes Lloyds Syndicate 2488 (Syndicate 2488). The reinsurance operation of ACE Global Markets is included in the Global Reinsurance segment. ACE provides funds at Lloyds to support underwriting by Syndicate 2488, which is managed by ACE Underwriting Agencies Limited and has an underwriting capacity of £400 million for 2010.
Products and Distribution
ACE International maintains a presence in every major insurance market in the world and is organized geographically along product lines that provide dedicated underwriting focus to customers. ACE Internationals P&C business is generally written, on both a direct and assumed basis, through major international, regional, and local brokers and agents. A&H and other
consumer lines products are distributed through brokers, agents, direct marketing programs, and sponsor relationships. Property insurance products include traditional commercial fire coverage as well as energy industry-related, construction, and other technical coverages. Principal casualty products are commercial primary and excess casualty, environmental, and general liability. ACE International also provides D&O, and professional indemnity coverages. Marine cargo and hull coverages are written in the London market as well as in marine markets throughout the world. The A&H operations design products to meet the insurance needs of individuals and groups outside of U.S. insurance markets. These products have represented an increasing portion of ACE Internationals business in recent years and include, but are not limited to, accidental death, disability, medical and hospital indemnity, and income protection coverages. We are not in the primary health care business. With respect to our supplemental medical and hospital indemnity products, we typically pay fixed amounts for claims and are therefore, insulated from rising health care costs. ACE Internationals personal lines operations provide specialty products and services designed to meet the needs of specific target markets and include, but are not limited to, property damage, auto, homeowners, and personal liability.
The following is a discussion of Insurance Overseas Generals five areas of operations: ACE European Group (which is comprised of ACE Europe and ACE Global Markets branded business), ACE Asia Pacific, ACE Far East, ACE Latin America, and Combined Insurance.
ACE European Group is headquartered in London and offers a broad range of P&C, A&H, and specialty coverages. ACE European Groups diversified product portfolio and geographical spread throughout the European Union enables it to potentially reduce earnings volatility. Commercial products are principally distributed through brokers while consumer products (mainly A&H) are distributed through brokers as well as through direct marketing programs. Certain ACE Europe branded products can also be offered via an e-commerce platform, ACE Online, that allows brokers to quote, bind, and issue specialty policies online. ACE European Group has operations in South Africa, Central and Eastern Europe, the Commonwealth of Independent States (the CIS), and the Middle East and North Africa. Our operations in these regions underwrite P&C and A&H business. ACE operations within Central and Eastern Europe and the CIS markets include insurance subsidiaries and branches in Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Russia, and Turkey. The Middle East and North Africa region includes insurance subsidiaries and joint ventures in Bahrain, Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. ACE Global Markets offers products through its parallel distribution network via ACE European Group Limited (AEGL) and Syndicate 2488. ACE Global Markets utilizes Syndicate 2488 to underwrite P&C business on a global basis through Lloyds worldwide licenses. ACE Global Markets utilizes AEGL to underwrite similar classes of business through its network of U.K. and Continental Europe licenses, and in the U.S. where it is eligible to write excess & surplus business. Factors influencing the decision to place business with Syndicate 2488 or AEGL include licensing eligibilities, capitalization requirements, and client/broker preference. All business underwritten by ACE Global Markets is accessed through registered brokers. The main lines of business include aviation, property, energy, professional lines, marine, political risk, and A&H.
ACE Asia Pacific is headquartered in Singapore and has an extensive network of operations serving Australia, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Korea, Macau, Malaysia, New Zealand, the Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam. ACE Asia Pacific offers a broad range of P&C, A&H, and specialty coverages principally directed at large and mid-sized corporations as well as individual consumers. This region also provides management, underwriting, reinsurance protection and administrative support to our equity investee, Huatai Insurance Company of China, Limited.
ACE Far East is based in Tokyo and offers a broad range of P&C, A&H, and personal lines insurance products and services to businesses and consumers in Japan, principally delivered through an extensive agency network.
ACE Latin America includes business operations throughout Latin America and the Caribbean, including offices in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, Panama, Peru, and Puerto Rico. ACE Latin America focuses on providing P&C, A&H, and specialty personal lines insurance products and services to both large and small commercial clients as well as individual consumers. ACE Latin America distributes its products through brokers (for its commercial business) and direct marketing and sponsored programs (for its consumer business).
Combined Insurance uses an international sales force of approximately 3,300 independent contractor agents to distribute a wide range of supplemental accident and health products, including personal accident, short-term disability, critical conditions and cancer aid, and hospital confinement/recovery. Most of these products are primarily fixed-indemnity obligations and are not subject to escalating medical cost inflation.
ACE Internationals primary competitors include U.S.-based companies with global operations, as well as non-U.S. global carriers and indigenous companies in regional and local markets. For the A&H lines of business, including those offered by Combined Insurance, locally-based competitors include financial institutions and bank-owned insurance subsidiaries. Our
international operations have the distinct advantage of being part of one of the few international insurance groups with a global network of licensed companies able to write policies on a locally admitted basis. The principal competitive factors that affect the international operations are underwriting expertise and pricing, relative operating efficiency, product differentiation, producer relations, and the quality of policyholder services. A competitive strength of our international operations is our global network and breadth of insurance programs, which assist individuals and business organizations to meet their risk management objectives, while also giving us the advantage of accessing local technical expertise, accomplishing a spread of risk, and offering a global network to service multi-national accounts.
ACE Global Markets is one of the preeminent international specialty insurers in London and is an established lead underwriter on a significant portion of the risks underwritten for all lines of business. This leadership position allows ACE Global Markets to set the policy terms and conditions of many of the policies written. All lines of business face competition, depending on the business class, from Lloyds syndicates, the London market, and other major international insurers and reinsurers. Competition for international risks is also seen from domestic insurers in the country of origin of the insured. ACE Global Markets differentiates itself from competitors through long standing experience in its product lines, its multiple insurance entities (Syndicate 2488 and AEGL), and the quality of its underwriting and claims service.
The Global Reinsurance segment, which accounted for seven percent of 2009 consolidated net premiums earned, represents ACEs reinsurance operations comprising ACE Tempest Re Bermuda, ACE Tempest Re USA, ACE Tempest Re Europe, and ACE Tempest Re Canada. Global Reinsurance markets its reinsurance products worldwide under the ACE Tempest Re brand name and provides a broad range of coverages to a diverse array of primary P&C insurers. The Global Reinsurance segment also includes the reinsurance operations of ACE Global Markets.
Products and Distribution
Global Reinsurance services clients globally through all of its major units. Major international brokers submit business to one or more of these units underwriting teams who have built strong relationships with both key brokers and clients by providing a responsive, client-focused approach to risk assessment and pricing.
ACE Tempest Re Bermuda principally provides property catastrophe reinsurance, on an excess of loss per occurrence basis globally to insurers of commercial and personal property. Property catastrophe reinsurance on an occurrence basis protects a ceding company against an accumulation of losses covered by its issued insurance policies, arising from a common event or occurrence. ACE Tempest Re Bermuda underwrites reinsurance principally on an excess of loss basis, meaning that its exposure only arises after the ceding companys accumulated losses have exceeded the attachment point of the reinsurance policy. ACE Tempest Re Bermuda also writes other types of reinsurance on a limited basis for selected clients. Examples include proportional property (the reinsurer shares a proportional part of the premiums and losses of the ceding company) and per risk excess of loss treaty reinsurance (coverage applies on a per risk basis rather than per event or aggregate basis), together with casualty and specialty lines (catastrophe workers compensation and terrorism). ACE Tempest Re Bermudas business is produced through reinsurance intermediaries.
ACE Tempest Re USA writes all lines of traditional and specialty P&C reinsurance for the North American market, principally on a treaty basis, with a focus on writing property per risk and casualty reinsurance, including medical malpractice, auto, and professional lines. This units diversified portfolio is produced through reinsurance intermediaries.
ACE Tempest Re Europe provides treaty reinsurance of P&C business of insurance companies worldwide, with emphasis on non-U.S. and London market risks. ACE Tempest Re Europe writes all lines of traditional and specialty reinsurance including property, casualty, marine, motor, aviation, and medical malpractice through our London- and Zurich-based divisions. The London-based divisions of ACE Tempest Re Europe focus on the development of business sourced through London market brokers and, consequently, write a diverse book of international business utilizing Lloyds Syndicate 2488 and AEGL. The Zurich-based division focuses on providing reinsurance to continental European insurers via continental European brokers. ACE Tempest Re Europe also includes our Shanghai office which provides reinsurance coverage for Chinese-based risks and our new Sao Paulo, Brazil office which provides reinsurance for Brazilian-based risks.
ACE Tempest Re Canada offers a full array of P&C reinsurance to the Canadian market. ACE Tempest Re Canada provides its coverage through its Canadian company platform and also offers its clients access to Lloyds Syndicate 2488.
The Global Reinsurance segment competes worldwide with major U.S. and non-U.S. reinsurers as well as reinsurance departments of numerous multi-line insurance organizations. Global Reinsurance is considered a lead reinsurer and is typically involved in the negotiation and quotation of the terms and conditions of the majority of the contracts in which it participates. Global Reinsurance competes effectively in P&C markets worldwide because of its strong capital position, the quality of service provided to customers, the leading role it plays in setting the terms, pricing, and conditions in negotiating contracts, and its customized approach to risk selection. The key competitors in our markets vary by geographic region and product line. Further, over the last several years, capital markets participants have developed financial products intended to compete with traditional reinsurance. In addition, government sponsored or backed catastrophe funds can affect demand for reinsurance.
Life, which accounted for 11 percent of 2009 consolidated net premiums earned, includes ACEs international life operations (ACE Life), ACE Tempest Life Re (ACE Life Re), and from April 1, 2008, the North American supplemental A&H and life business of Combined Insurance. ACE Life provides individual and group life insurance through multiple distribution channels primarily in emerging markets, including Indonesia, Taiwan, Thailand, Vietnam, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, throughout Latin America, selectively in Europe, as well as China through a partially-owned insurance company. ACE Life Re helps clients (ceding companies) manage mortality, morbidity, and lapse risks embedded in their books of business. ACE Life Re comprises two operations. The first is a Bermuda-based operation which provides reinsurance to primary life insurers, focusing on guarantees included in certain fixed and variable annuity products and also on more traditional mortality reinsurance protection. The second is a U.S.-based traditional life reinsurance company licensed in 49 states and the District of Columbia. In January 2010, a strategic decision was made to discontinue writing new traditional life mortality reinsurance business from the U.S.-based company. Although the traditional life reinsurance business was profitable in 2009, it does not represent a significant future opportunity to generate profitability that justifies the use of our capital. Net premiums written for traditional life reinsurance was $41 million in 2009. Combined Insurance distributes specialty individual accident and supplemental health and life insurance products targeted to middle income consumers in the U.S. and Canada.
Products and Distribution
ACE Life offers a broad portfolio of protection and savings products including whole life, endowment plans, individual term life, group term life, group medical, personal accident, universal life, and unit linked contracts. The policies written by ACE Life generally provide funds to beneficiaries of insureds after death and/or protection and/or savings benefits while the contract owner is living. ACE Life sells to consumers through a variety of distribution channels including agency, bancassurance, brokers, and telemarketing. We continue to expand this business with a focus on opportunities in emerging markets that we believe will result in strong and sustainable operating profits as well as favorable return on capital commitments after an initial growth period.
Our dedicated agency distribution channel, whereby agents sell ACE Life products exclusively, enables us to maintain direct contact with the individual consumer, promote quality sales practices, and exercise greater control over the future of the business. ACE Life is developing agency distribution in those countries in which we believe we can achieve sustainable growth as well as a favorable return on our investment. As of December 31, 2009, ACE Life, excluding China, has developed a sales force of over 9,000 agents principally located in Asia-Pacific countries, including a leadership position in Vietnam and growing agency forces in Indonesia and Thailand. ACE Life manages its agency business through key performance indicators, among other things, that monitor the retention and productivity of its agents and persistency of our business.
ACE maintains approximately 37 percent direct and indirect ownership interest in Huatai Life Insurance Co., Ltd. (Huatai Life), which commenced operations in 2005. Huatai Life offers a broad portfolio of insurance products through a variety of distribution channels in eight provinces within China. Based on 2009 premium volume as defined by China regulations, which include investment deposits, Huatai Life was ranked among the top 15 of 50 life insurers in China and the third largest foreign invested life insurer. Huatai Life has developed a sales force of approximately 19,000 agents as of December 31, 2009, and maintains distribution agreements with many large banks within China.
Since 2007, ACE Life Re has not quoted on new opportunities in the variable annuity reinsurance marketplace. A significant percentage of our total revenue and income/losses in Bermuda derives from our core line of business, which is the reinsurance of variable annuity guarantees, including both death and living benefit guarantees. This business is managed with a long-term perspective and short-term earnings volatility is expected. Our primary focus in the Bermuda operation is to successfully manage the current portfolio of risk in the variable annuity line of business.
Combined Insurance uses a North American sales force of over 2,000 agents to distribute a wide range of supplemental accident and sickness insurance products, including personal accident, short-term disability, critical illness, Medicare supplement products, and hospital confinement/recovery. Most of these products are primarily fixed-indemnity obligations and are not subject to escalating medical cost inflation.
ACE Lifes competition differs by location but generally includes multi-national insurers, and in some locations, local insurers, joint ventures, or state-owned insurers. ACEs financial strength and reputation as an entrepreneurial organization with a global presence give ACE Life a strong base from which to compete. While ACE Life Re is not currently quoting on new opportunities in the variable annuity reinsurance marketplace, we continue to monitor developments in this market. ACE Life Re has written traditional mortality reinsurance from both its Bermuda and U.S. companies. The life reinsurance market for traditional mortality risk is highly competitive as most of the reinsurance companies are well established, have significant operating histories, strong claims-paying ability ratings, and long-standing client relationships through existing treaties with ceding companies.
Combined Insurance competes for A&H business in the U.S. against numerous A&H and life insurance companies across various industry segments.
ACE is an underwriting company and we strive to emphasize quality of underwriting rather than volume of business or market share. Our underwriting strategy is to employ consistent, disciplined pricing and risk selection in order to maintain a profitable book of business throughout market cycles. Clearly defined underwriting authorities, standards, and guidelines are in place in each of our local operations and global profit centers. Global product boards ensure consistency of approach and the establishment of best practices throughout the world. Our priority is to help ensure adherence to criteria for risk selection by maintaining high levels of experience and expertise in our underwriting staff. In addition, we employ a business review structure that helps ensure control of risk quality and conservative use of policy limits and terms and conditions.
Qualified actuaries in each region work closely with the underwriting teams to provide additional expertise in the underwriting process. We use sophisticated catastrophe loss and risk modeling techniques designed to ensure appropriate spread of risk and to analyze correlation of risk across different product lines and territories. This helps to ensure that losses are contained within our risk tolerance and appetite for individual products lines, businesses, and ACE as a whole. We also purchase reinsurance as a tool to diversify risk and limit the net loss potential of catastrophes and large or unusually hazardous risks, refer to Reinsurance Protection. For more information refer to Insurance and Reinsurance Markets, under Item 1A, Catastrophe Exposure Management and Natural Catastrophe Reinsurance Program, under Item 7, and Note 5 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, under Item 8.
As part of our risk management strategy, we purchase reinsurance protection to mitigate our exposure to losses, including catastrophes, to an acceptable level. Although reinsurance agreements contractually obligate our reinsurers to reimburse us for an agreed-upon portion of our gross paid losses, this reinsurance does not discharge our primary liability to our insureds and, thus, we ultimately remain liable for the gross direct losses. In certain countries, reinsurer selection is limited by local laws or regulations. In those areas where there is more freedom of choice, the counterparty is selected based upon its financial strength, management, line of business expertise, and its price for assuming the risk transferred. In support of this process, we maintain an ACE authorized reinsurer list that stratifies these authorized reinsurers by classes of business and acceptable limits. This list is maintained by our Reinsurance Security Committee (RSC), a committee comprised of senior management personnel and a dedicated reinsurer security team. Changes to the list are authorized by the RSC and recommended to the Chair of the Enterprise Risk Management Board. The reinsurers on the authorized list and potential new markets are regularly reviewed and the list may be modified following these reviews. In addition to the authorized list, there is a formal exception process that allows authorized reinsurance buyers to use reinsurers already on the authorized list for higher limits or different lines of business, for example, or other reinsurers not on the authorized list if their use is supported by compelling business reasons for a particular reinsurance program.
A separate policy and process exists for captive reinsurance companies. Generally, these reinsurance companies are established by our clients or our clients have an interest in them. It is generally our policy to obtain collateral equal to the expected losses that may be ceded to the captive. Where appropriate, exceptions to the collateral requirement are granted but only after senior management review. Specific collateral guidelines and an exception process are in place for ACE USA and Insurance Overseas General, both of which have credit management units evaluating the captives credit quality and that of
their parent company. The credit management units, working with actuarial, determine reasonable exposure estimates (collateral calculations), ensure receipt of collateral in a form acceptable to the Company, and coordinate collateral adjustments as and when needed. Currently, financial reviews and expected loss evaluations are performed annually for active captive accounts and as needed for run-off exposures. In addition to collateral, parental guarantees are often used to enhance the credit quality of the captive.
In general, we seek to place our reinsurance with highly rated companies with which we have a strong trading relationship. For more information refer to Catastrophe Exposure Management and Natural Catastrophe Reinsurance Program, under Item 7, and Note 5 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, under Item 8.
Unpaid Losses and Loss Expenses
We establish reserves for unpaid losses and loss expenses, which are estimates of future payments on reported and unreported claims for losses and related expenses, with respect to insured events that have occurred. The process of establishing loss and loss expense reserves for P&C claims can be complex and is subject to considerable uncertainty as it requires the use of informed estimates and judgments based on circumstances known at the date of accrual. These estimates and judgments are based on numerous factors, and may be revised as additional experience and other data become available and are reviewed, as new or improved methodologies are developed, or as laws change. We have actuarial staff in each of our operating segments who regularly analyze the levels of loss and loss expense reserves, taking into consideration factors that may impact the ultimate settlement value of the unpaid losses and loss expenses. These analyses could result in future changes in the estimates of loss and loss expense reserves or reinsurance recoverables and any such changes would be reflected in our results of operations in the period in which the estimates are changed. Losses and loss expenses are charged to income as incurred. The reserve for unpaid losses and loss expenses represents the estimated ultimate losses and loss expenses less paid losses and loss expenses, and comprises case reserves and incurred but not reported (IBNR) loss reserves. With the exception of certain structured settlements, for which the timing and amount of future claim payments are reliably determinable, our loss reserves are not discounted for the time value of money. In connection with these structured settlements, we carried net reserves of $76 million, net of discount, at December 31, 2009.
During the loss settlement period, which can be many years in duration, additional facts regarding individual claims and trends often will become known. As these become apparent, case reserves may be adjusted by allocation from IBNR without any change in the overall reserve. In addition, the circumstances of individual claims or the application of statistical and actuarial methods to loss experience data may lead to the adjustment of the overall reserves upward or downward from time to time. Accordingly, the ultimate settlement of losses may be significantly greater than or less than reported loss and loss expense reserves.
We have considered asbestos and environmental (A&E) claims and claims expenses in establishing the liability for unpaid losses and loss expenses and have developed reserving methods which consider historical experience as well as incorporate new sources of data to estimate the ultimate losses arising from A&E exposures. The reserves for A&E claims and claims expenses represent managements best estimate of future loss and loss expense payments and recoveries that are expected to develop over the next several decades. We continuously monitor evolving case law and its effect on environmental and latent injury claims, we monitor A&E claims activity quarterly, and we perform a full reserve review annually.
For each product line, management, in conjunction with internal actuaries, develops a best estimate of the ultimate settlement value of the unpaid losses and loss expenses that it believes provides a reasonable estimate of the required reserve. We evaluate our estimates of reserves quarterly in light of developing information. While we are unable at this time to determine whether additional reserves may be necessary in the future, we believe that our reserves for unpaid losses and loss expenses are adequate at December 31, 2009. Future additions to reserves, if needed, could have a material adverse effect upon our financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows.
For more information refer to Critical Accounting EstimatesUnpaid losses and loss expenses, under Item 7 and Note 7 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, under Item 8.
The Analysis of Losses and Loss Expenses Development table shown below presents, for each balance sheet date over the period 1999-2009, the gross and net loss and loss expense reserves recorded at the balance sheet date and subsequent net payments on the associated liabilities. The reserves represent the amount required for the estimated future settlement value of liabilities incurred at or prior to the balance sheet date and those estimates may change subsequent to the balance sheet date as new information emerges regarding the ultimate settlement value of the liability. Accordingly, the table also presents through December 31, 2009, for each balance sheet date, the cumulative impact of subsequent valuations of the liabilities incurred at the original balance sheet date. The data in the table is presented in accordance with reporting requirements of the
SEC. This table should be interpreted with care by those not familiar with its format or those who are familiar with other triangulations arranged by origin year of loss such as accident or underwriting year rather than balance sheet date, as shown below. To clarify the interpretation of the table, we use the reserves established at December 31, 1999, in the following example.
The top two lines of the table show, for successive balance sheet dates, the gross and net unpaid losses and loss expenses recorded as provision for liabilities incurred at or prior to each balance sheet date. It can be seen that at December 31, 1999, a reserve of $9.244 billion net of reinsurance had been established.
The upper (paid) triangulation presents the net amounts paid as of periods subsequent to the balance sheet date. Hence in the 2000 financial year, $2.717 billion of payments were made on liabilities contemplated in the December 31, 1999, reserve balance. At the end of the 2009 financial year, there were cumulative net payments of $7.671 billion on this block of liabilities.
The lower triangulation within the table shows the revised estimate of the net liability originally recorded at each balance sheet date as of the end of subsequent financial years. With the benefit of actual loss emergence and hindsight over the intervening period, the net liabilities incurred as of December 31, 1999, are now estimated to be $10.909 billion, rather than the original estimate of $9.244 billion. One of the key drivers of this change has been adverse development on latent claims that we categorize as A&E covered under the National Indemnity Company (NICO) reinsurance treaties. Of the cumulative deficiency of $1.665 billion recognized in the ten years since December 31, 1999, $464 million relates to non-latent claims and $1.201 billion relates to latent claims. The deficiency of $1.665 billion was identified and recorded as follows; $16 million redundant in 2000, $4 million deficient in 2001, $526 million deficient in 2002, $155 million deficient in 2003, $875 million deficient in 2004, $120 million redundant in 2005, $41 million deficient in 2006, $28 million redundant in 2007, $108 million deficient in 2008, and $120 million deficient in 2009.
Importantly, the cumulative deficiency or redundancy for different balance sheet dates are not independent and, therefore, should not be added together. In the last year, we revised our estimate of the December 31, 1999, liabilities from $10.789 billion to $10.909 billion. This adverse development of $120 million will also be included in each column to the right of the December 31, 1999, column to recognize that this additional amount was also required in the reserves established for each annual balance sheet date from December 31, 2000, to December 31, 2009.
The loss development table shows that our original estimate of the net unpaid loss and loss expense requirement at December 31, 2008, of $24.241 billion has, with the benefit of actual loss emergence and hindsight, been revised to $23.653 billion at December 31, 2009. This favorable movement of $588 million is referred to as prior period development and is the net result of a number of underlying movements both favorable and adverse. (See note 3 to table below). The key underlying movements are discussed in more detail within the Prior Period Development section of Item 7.
The bottom lines of the table show the re-estimated amount of previously recorded gross liabilities at December 31, 2009, together with the change in reinsurance recoverable. Similar to the net liabilities, the cumulative redundancy or deficiency on the gross liability is the difference between the gross liability originally recorded and the re-estimated gross liability at December 31, 2009. For example, with respect to the gross unpaid loss and loss expenses of $16.713 billion for December 31, 1999, this gross liability was re-estimated to be $23.274 billion at December 31, 2009, resulting in the cumulative deficiency on the gross liability originally recorded for the 1999 balance sheet year of $6.561 billion. This deficiency relates primarily to U.S. liabilities, including A&E liabilities for 1995 and prior. The gross deficiency results in a net deficiency of $1.665 billion after consideration of substantial reinsurance coverage that reduces the gross loss; approximately $2.2 billion was covered by reinsurance placed when the risks were originally written and $1.25 billion of the remaining liability has been ceded to NICO.
We do not consider it appropriate to extrapolate future deficiencies or redundancies based upon the table, as conditions and trends that have affected development of the liability in the past may not necessarily recur in the future. We believe that our current estimates of net liabilities appropriately reflect our current knowledge of the business profile and the prevailing market, social, legal, and economic conditions while giving due consideration to historical trends and volatility evidenced in our markets over the longer term. The key issues and considerations involved in establishing our estimate of the net liabilities are discussed in more detail within the Critical Accounting EstimatesUnpaid losses and loss expenses section of Item 7.
On July 2, 1999, we changed our fiscal year-end from September 30 to December 31. As a result, the information provided for the 1999 year is actually for the 15-month period from October 1, 1998, through December 31, 1999. On July 2, 1999, we acquired ACE INA (CIGNAs P&C business) and on April 1, 2008, we acquired Combined Insurance. The unpaid loss information has been included in the table commencing in the year of acquisition. As a result, 1999 includes net reserves of $6.8 billion related to ACE INA at the date of acquisition and subsequent development thereon.
Analysis of Losses and Loss Expenses Development
The reference to losses in the table above refers to losses and loss expenses.
(1) The 1999 year is for the 15-month period ended December 31, 1999.
(2) This amount does not agree to the reconciliation of unpaid losses and loss expenses for the 2007 year in the table below due to the accounting treatment of a novation of a retroactive assumed loss portfolio transfer from 2002 resulting in the elimination of deferred assets of $79 million and the reduction of the related reserve.
(3) This amount does not agree to the reconciliation of unpaid losses and loss expenses for the 2009 year in the table below due to the accounting treatment of Crop profit commission resulting in the reduction of $9 million in the related net losses and loss expenses incurred in respect of losses occurring in prior years. Note that there is a corresponding increase of $9 million in net losses and loss expenses incurred in respect of losses occurring in the current year.
Reconciliation of Unpaid Losses and Loss Expenses
(1) Net of provision for uncollectible reinsurance
Net losses and loss expenses incurred for 2009 were $7.4 billion, compared with $7.6 billion in 2008, and $7.4 billion in 2007. Net losses and loss expenses incurred for 2009, 2008, and 2007, include $579 million, $814 million, and $217 million of net favorable prior period development, respectively. For more information, refer to the Prior Period Development section of Item 7.
Our principal investment objective is to ensure that funds will be available to meet our primary insurance and reinsurance obligations. Within this broad liquidity constraint, the investment portfolios structure seeks to maximize return subject to specifically-approved guidelines of overall asset classes, credit quality, liquidity, and volatility of expected returns. As such, our investment portfolio is invested primarily in investment-grade fixed-income securities as measured by the major rating agencies.
The management of our investment portfolio is the responsibility of ACE Asset Management, an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of ACE. ACE Asset Management operates principally to guide and direct our investment process. In this regard, ACE Asset Management:
conducts formal asset allocation modeling for each of the ACE subsidiaries, providing formal recommendations for the portfolios structure;
establishes recommended investment guidelines that are appropriate to the prescribed asset allocation targets;
provides the analysis, evaluation, and selection of our external investment advisors;
establishes and develops investment-related analytics to enhance portfolio engineering and risk control;
monitors and aggregates the correlated risk of the overall investment portfolio; and
provides governance over the investment process for each of our operating companies to ensure consistency of approach and adherence to investment guidelines.
For the portfolio, we determine allowable, targeted asset allocation and ranges for each of the operating segments. These asset allocation targets are derived from sophisticated asset and liability modeling that measures correlated histories of returns and volatility of returns. Allowable investment classes are further refined through analysis of our operating environment, including expected volatility of cash flows, overall capital position, regulatory, and rating agency considerations.
The Finance and Investment Committee of the Board approves asset allocation targets and reviews our investment policy to ensure that it is consistent with our overall goals, strategies, and objectives. Overall investment guidelines are reviewed and approved by the Finance and Investment Committee to ensure that appropriate levels of portfolio liquidity, credit quality, diversification, and volatility are maintained. In addition, the Finance and Investment Committee systematically reviews the portfolios exposures including any potential violations of investment guidelines. We have long-standing global credit limits for our entire portfolio across the organization. Exposures are aggregated, monitored, and actively managed by our Global Credit Committee, comprised of senior executives, including our Chief Financial Officer, our Chief Risk Officer, our Chief Investment Officer, and our Treasurer. Additionally, the Board has established a Risk Committee which helps execute the Boards supervisory responsibilities pertaining to enterprise risk management including investment risk.
Within the guidelines and asset allocation parameters established by the Finance and Investment Committee, individual investment committees of the operating segments determine tactical asset allocation. Additionally, these committees review all investment-related activity that affects their operating company, including the selection of outside investment advisors, proposed asset allocations changes, and the systematic review of investment guidelines.
For additional information regarding the investment portfolio, including breakdowns of the sector and maturity distributions, refer to Note 4 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, under Item 8.
Our insurance and reinsurance subsidiaries conduct business globally, including in all 50 states of the United States and the District of Columbia. Our businesses in each of these jurisdictions are subject to varying degrees of regulation and supervision. The laws and regulations of the jurisdictions in which our insurance and reinsurance subsidiaries are domiciled require among other things that these subsidiaries maintain minimum levels of statutory capital, surplus and liquidity, meet solvency standards, and submit to periodic examinations of their financial condition. The complex regulatory environments in which ACE operates are subject to change and are regularly monitored. The following is an overview discussion of regulations for our operations in Switzerland, the U.S., Bermuda, and other international locations.
The Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority, which we refer to as FINMA has the discretion to supervise our group activities. Under so-called group supervision, FINMA has the right to supervise the Company on a group-wide basis. The regulatory power of FINMA covers in particular the following areas:
reporting on organization;
reporting on structure;
reporting on internal transactions;
group/conglomerate report; and
corporate governance/risk management/internal control system.
In 2008, we received written confirmation from the Federal Office of Private Insurance (FOPI), a FINMA predecessor insurance supervising authority, that it does not intend to subject us to group supervision so long as certain business parameters within Switzerland are not exceeded. While we currently intend to operate within these parameters, we cannot assure you that our future business needs may not require that we exceed these parameters or that FINMA will not change these parameters or otherwise determine to exercise group supervision over us. The costs and administrative burdens of group supervision could be substantial. Late in 2008, we formed ACE Insurance (Switzerland) Limited which offers various insurance covers to small and mid-sized Swiss companies, as well as A&H solutions to individuals. We have also formed a reinsurance subsidiary named ACE Reinsurance (Switzerland) Limited which we operate as primarily a provider of reinsurance to other ACE entities. Both new companies are licensed and governed by FINMA.
Our U.S. insurance subsidiaries are subject to extensive regulation and supervision by the states in which they do business. The laws of the various states establish departments of insurance with broad authority to regulate, among other things: the standards of solvency that must be met and maintained, the licensing of insurers and their producers, approval of policy forms and rates, the nature of and limitations on investments, restrictions on the size of the risks which may be insured under a single policy, deposits of securities for the benefit of policyholders, requirements for the acceptability of reinsurers, periodic examinations of the affairs of insurance companies, the form and content of reports of financial condition required to be filed, and the adequacy of reserves for unearned premiums, losses, and other purposes.
Our U.S. insurance subsidiaries are required to file detailed annual and quarterly reports with state insurance regulators in each of the states in which they do business. In addition, our U.S. insurance subsidiaries operations and financial records are subject to examination at regular intervals by state regulators.
All states have enacted legislation that regulates insurance holding companies. This legislation provides that each insurance company in the system is required to register with the insurance department of its state of domicile and furnish information concerning the operations of companies within the holding company system that may materially affect the operations, management, or financial condition of the insurers within the system. All transactions within a holding company system must be fair and equitable. Notice to the insurance departments is required prior to the consummation of transactions affecting the ownership or control of an insurer and of certain material transactions between an insurer and an entity in its holding company system; in addition, certain transactions may not be consummated without the departments prior approval.
Statutory surplus is an important measure utilized by the regulators and rating agencies to assess our U.S. insurance subsidiaries ability to support business operations and provide dividend capacity. Our U.S. insurance subsidiaries are subject to various state statutory and regulatory restrictions that limit the amount of dividends that may be paid without prior approval from regulatory authorities. These restrictions differ by state, but are generally based on calculations incorporating statutory surplus, statutory net income, and/or investment income.
The National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) has a risk-based capital requirement for P&C insurance companies. This risk-based capital formula is used by many state regulatory authorities to identify insurance companies that may be undercapitalized and which merit further regulatory attention. These requirements are designed to monitor capital adequacy using a formula that prescribes a series of risk measurements to determine a minimum capital amount for an insurance company, based on the profile of the individual company. The ratio of a companys actual policyholder surplus to its minimum capital requirement will determine whether any state regulatory action is required. There are progressive risk-based capital failure levels that trigger more stringent regulatory action. If an insurers policyholders surplus falls below the Mandatory Control Level (70 percent of the Authorized Control Level, as defined by the NAIC), the relevant insurance commissioner is required to place the insurer under regulatory control. However, an insurance commissioner may allow a P&C company operating below the Mandatory Control Level that is writing no business and is running off its existing business to continue its run-off. Brandywine is running off its liabilities consistent with the terms of an order issued by the Insurance Commissioner of Pennsylvania. This includes periodic reporting obligations to the Pennsylvania Insurance Department.
Government intervention has also occurred in the insurance and reinsurance markets in relation to terrorism coverage in the U.S. (and through industry initiatives in other countries). The U.S. Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA), which was enacted in 2002 to ensure the availability of insurance coverage for certain types of terrorist acts in the U.S., was extended in 2007 for seven years, through 2014, and applies to certain of our operations.
From time to time, ACE and its subsidiaries and affiliates receive inquiries from state agencies and attorneys general, with which we generally comply, seeking information concerning business practices, such as underwriting and non-traditional or loss mitigation insurance products. Moreover, many recent factors, such as consequences of and reactions to industry and economic conditions as well as a change in the presidential administration and focus on domestic issues, have contributed to the potential for change in the legal and regulatory framework applicable to ACEs U.S. operations and businesses. We cannot assure you that changes in laws or investigative or enforcement activities in the various U.S states will not have a material adverse impact on our financial condition, results, or business practices. More information on insurance industry investigations, including settlement agreements and related matters, is set forth in Note 10 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, under Item 8.
In Bermuda, our insurance subsidiaries are principally regulated by the Insurance Act 1978 (as amended) and related regulations (the Act). The Act imposes solvency and liquidity standards as well as auditing and reporting requirements, and grants the Bermuda Monetary Authority (the Authority) powers to supervise, investigate, and intervene in the affairs of insurance companies. Significant requirements include the appointment of an independent auditor, the appointment of a loss reserve specialist, and the filing of the Annual Statutory Financial Return with the Executive Member responsible for Insurance (the Executive). We must comply with provisions of the Companies Act 1981 regulating the payment of dividends and distributions. A Bermuda company may not declare or pay a dividend or make a distribution out of contributed surplus if there are reasonable grounds for believing that: (a) the company is, or would after the payment be, unable to pay its liabilities as they become due; or (b) the realizable value of the companys assets would thereby be less than the aggregate of its liabilities and its issued share capital and share premium accounts. Further, an insurer may not declare or pay any dividends during any financial year if it would cause the insurer to fail to meet its relevant margins, and an insurer which fails to meet its relevant
margins on the last day of any financial year may not, without the approval of the Minister of Finance, declare or pay any dividends during the next financial year. In addition, some of ACEs Bermuda subsidiaries qualify as Class 4 insurers and may not in any financial year pay dividends which would exceed 25 percent of their total statutory capital and surplus, as shown on their statutory balance sheet in relation to the previous financial year, unless they file a solvency affidavit at least seven days in advance.
The Executive may appoint an inspector with extensive powers to investigate the affairs of an insurer if he or she believes that an investigation is required in the interest of the insurers policyholders or persons who may become policyholders. If it appears to the Executive that there is a risk of the insurer becoming insolvent, or that the insurer is in breach of the Act or any conditions of its registration under the Act, the Executive may direct the insurer not to take on any new insurance business, not to vary any insurance contract if the effect would be to increase the insurers liabilities, not to make certain investments, to realize certain investments, to maintain in, or transfer to the custody of a specified bank certain assets, not to declare or pay any dividends or other distributions, or to restrict the making of such payments and/or to limit its premium income.
The Act also requires the Authority to supervise persons carrying on insurance business, insurance managers, and intermediaries with the aim of protecting the interests of clients and potential clients of such persons. The Act requires every insurer to appoint a principal representative resident in Bermuda and to maintain a principal office in Bermuda. The principal representative must be knowledgeable in insurance and is responsible for arranging the maintenance and custody of the statutory accounting records and for filing the annual Statutory Financial Return.
Other International Operations
The extent of insurance regulation varies significantly among the countries in which the non-U.S. ACE operations conduct business. While each country imposes licensing, solvency, auditing, and financial reporting requirements, the type and extent of the requirements differ substantially. For example:
in some countries, insurers are required to prepare and file quarterly financial reports, and in others, only annual reports;
some regulators require intermediaries to be involved in the sale of insurance products, whereas other regulators permit direct sales contact between the insurer and the customer;
the extent of restrictions imposed upon an insurers use of foreign reinsurance vary;
policy form filing and rate regulation vary by country;
the frequency of contact and periodic on-site examinations by insurance authorities differ by country; and
regulatory requirements relating to insurer dividend policies vary by country.
Significant variations can also be found in the size, structure, and resources of the local regulatory departments that oversee insurance activities. Certain regulators prefer close relationships with all subject insurers and others operate a risk-based approach.
ACE operates in some countries through subsidiaries and in some countries through branches of those subsidiaries. Local capital requirements applicable to a subsidiary generally include its branches. Certain ACE companies are jointly owned with local companies to comply with legal requirements for local ownership. Other legal requirements include discretionary licensing procedures, compulsory cessions of reinsurance, local retention of funds and records, data privacy and protection program requirements, and foreign exchange controls. ACEs international companies are also subject to multinational application of certain U.S. laws.
Moreover, there are various regulatory bodies and initiatives that impact ACE in multiple international jurisdictions and the potential for significant impact on ACE could be heightened as a result of recent industry and economic developments. In particular, the European Unions (EU) executive body, the European Commission, is implementing new capital adequacy and risk management regulations for the European insurance industry, known as Solvency II, which aims to establish a revised set of EU-wide capital requirements and risk management standards that will replace the current Solvency I requirements. Once finalized, Solvency II is expected to set out new, strengthened requirements applicable to the entire EU relating to capital adequacy and risk management for insurers. Other jurisdictions such as Bermuda and Switzerland are likely to strengthen their respective capital and risk management requirements.
Enterprise Risk Management
As an insurer, ACE is in the business of risk management for profit. As a result, enterprise risk management, or ERM, is a part of the day-to-day management of the Company and its operations. Because risk management must permeate an organization conducting insurance businesses around the world, we have established an ERM process that is integrated into management of our businesses and is led by ACEs senior management.
Our global ERM framework is broadly multi-disciplinary and its objectives include:
support core risk management responsibilities at division and corporate levels through the identification and management of risks that aggregate and/or correlate across divisions;
identify, analyze, and mitigate significant external risks that could impair the financial condition of ACE and/or hinder its business objectives;
coordinate accumulation guidelines and actual exposure relative to guidelines, risk codes, and other risk processes;
provide analysis and maintain accumulation and economic capital and information systems that enable business leaders to make appropriate and consistent risk/return decisions;
identify and assess emerging risk issues; and
develop and communicate to the Companys business lines consistent risk management processes.
The Companys Enterprise Risk Management Board (ERMB) reports to and assists the Chief Executive Officer in the oversight and review of ACEs ERM framework. The ERMB is chaired by the Companys Chief Risk Officer and Chief Actuary. The ERMB oversees and monitors the processes and guidelines used to manage insurance risk, financial risk, strategic risk, and operational risk. The ERMB governance framework relies in part on establishment and maintenance of risk limits and a risk matrix through which inherent and residual risks across the organization are cataloged. The ERMB meets at least monthly, and is comprised of the Companys most senior executives, in addition to the Chair: the Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Investment Officer, Chief Claims Officer, General Counsel, Chief Executive Officer for Insurance North America, Chief Executive Officer for ACE Overseas General, and our Assumed Reinsurance Officer.
The ERMB is provided support from various sources, including the Enterprise Risk Unit (ERU) and Product Boards. The ERU is responsible for the collation and analysis of two types of information. First, external information that provides insight to the ERMB on risks that might imperil ACEs key objectives and second, internal information on single named, product, and cross-product accumulations. The ERU is independent of the operating units and reports to our Chief Risk Officer and Chief Actuary. The Product Boards exist to provide oversight for products that the Company offers globally. A Product Board currently exists for each of the following products; property/energy, marine, casualty, financial lines, aviation, and political risk. Each Product Board is responsible for ensuring consistency in underwriting and pricing standards, identification of emerging issues, and single name accumulation guidelines.
The Companys Chief Risk Officer and Chief Actuary also reports to the Boards Risk Committee, which helps execute the Boards supervisory responsibilities pertaining to ERM. The role of the Risk Committee includes evaluation of the integrity and effectiveness of the Companys ERM procedures and systems and information; oversight of policy decisions pertaining to risk aggregation and minimization, including credit risk; and assessment of the Companys major decisions and preparedness levels pertaining to perceived material risks. The Audit Committee, which regularly meets jointly with the Risk Committee, provides oversight of the financial reporting process and safeguarding of assets.
Others within the ERM structure contribute toward accomplishing ACEs ERM objectives, including regional management, Internal Audit, Compliance, external consultants, and managers of our internal control processes and procedures.
Refer to Risk Factors, under Item 1A below, and Note 2 m) to the Consolidated Financial Statements, under Item 8.
Factors that could have a material impact on our results of operations or financial condition are outlined below. Additional risks not presently known to us or that we currently deem insignificant may also impair our business or results of operations as they become known facts or as facts and circumstances change. Any of the risks described below could result in a significant or material adverse effect on our results of operations or financial condition.
U.S. and global economic and financial industry events and their consequences could harm our business, our liquidity and financial condition, and our stock price.
Global market and economic conditions have been severely disrupted over the past three years which included widespread recession. These conditions and their consequences may affect (among other aspects of our business) the demand for and claims made under our products, the ability of customers, counterparties, and others to establish or maintain their relationships with us, our ability to access and efficiently use internal and external capital resources, the availability of reinsurance protection, the risks we assume under reinsurance programs covering variable annuity guarantees, and our investment performance. Continued volatility in the U.S. and other securities markets may adversely affect our stock price.
Our financial condition could be adversely affected by the occurrence of natural and man-made disasters.
We have substantial exposure to losses resulting from natural disasters, man-made catastrophes, and other catastrophic events. Catastrophes can be caused by various events, including hurricanes, typhoons, earthquakes, hailstorms, explosions, severe winter weather, fires, war, acts of terrorism, political instability, and other natural or man-made disasters, including a global or other wide-impact pandemic. The incidence and severity of catastrophes are inherently unpredictable and our losses from catastrophes could be substantial. In addition, climate conditions may be changing, primarily through changes in global temperatures, which may in the future increase the frequency and severity of natural catastrophes and the resulting losses. The occurrence of claims from catastrophic events could result in substantial volatility in our results of operations or financial condition for any fiscal quarter or year. Increases in the values and concentrations of insured property may also increase the severity of these occurrences in the future. Although we attempt to manage our exposure to such events through the use of underwriting controls and the purchase of third-party reinsurance, catastrophic events are inherently unpredictable and the actual nature of such events when they occur could be more frequent or severe than contemplated in our pricing and risk management expectations. As a result, the occurrence of one or more catastrophic events could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations or financial condition.
If actual claims exceed our loss reserves, our financial results could be adversely affected.
Our results of operations and financial condition depend upon our ability to assess accurately the potential losses associated with the risks that we insure and reinsure. We establish reserves for unpaid losses and loss expenses, which are estimates of future payments of reported and unreported claims for losses and related expenses, with respect to insured events that have occurred at or prior to the date of the balance sheet. The process of establishing reserves can be highly complex and is subject to considerable variability as it requires the use of informed estimates and judgments.
We have actuarial staff in each of our operating segments who analyze insurance reserves and regularly evaluate the levels of loss reserves. Any such evaluations could result in future changes in estimates of losses or reinsurance recoverable and would be reflected in our results of operations in the period in which the estimates are changed. Losses and loss expenses are charged to income as incurred. Reserves for unpaid losses and loss expenses represent the estimated ultimate losses and loss expenses less paid losses and loss expenses, and is comprised of case reserves and IBNR. During the loss settlement period, which can be many years in duration for some of our lines of business, additional facts regarding individual claims and trends often will become known. As these become apparent, case reserves may be adjusted by allocation from IBNR without any change in overall reserves. In addition, application of statistical and actuarial methods may require the adjustment of overall reserves upward or downward from time to time.
Included in our liabilities for losses and loss expenses are liabilities for latent claims such as A&E. At December 31, 2009, these A&E liabilities represented approximately 6.7 percent of our liabilities for losses and loss expenses. These claims are principally related to claims arising from remediation costs associated with hazardous waste sites and bodily-injury claims related to exposure to asbestos products and environmental hazards. The estimation of these liabilities is subject to many complex variables including: the current legal environment; specific settlements that may be used as precedents to settle future
claims; assumptions regarding multiple recoveries by claimants against various defendants; the ability of a claimant to bring a claim in a state in which they have no residency or exposure; the ability of a policyholder to claim the right to non-products coverage; whether high-level excess policies have the potential to be accessed given the policyholders claim trends and liability situation; payments to unimpaired claimants; and, the potential liability of peripheral defendants.
Accordingly, the ultimate settlement of losses, arising from either latent or non-latent causes, may be significantly greater or less than the loss and loss expense reserves held at the date of the balance sheet. If our loss reserves are determined to be inadequate, we will be required to increase loss reserves at the time of such determination and our net income will be reduced. If the increase in loss reserves is large enough, we could incur a net loss and a net reduction of our capital.
The effects of emerging claim and coverage issues on our business are uncertain.
As industry practices and legislative, regulatory, judicial, social, financial, and other environmental conditions change, unexpected and unintended issues related to claims and coverage may emerge. These issues may adversely affect our business by either extending coverage beyond our underwriting intent or by increasing the frequency and severity of claims. In some instances, these changes may not become apparent until some time after we have issued insurance or reinsurance contracts that are affected by the changes. As a result, the full extent of liability under our insurance or reinsurance contracts may not be known for many years after a contract is issued.
The failure of any of the loss limitation methods we employ could have an adverse effect on our results of operations or financial condition.
We seek to limit our loss exposure by writing a number of our insurance and reinsurance contracts on an excess of loss basis. Excess of loss insurance and reinsurance indemnifies the insured against losses in excess of a specified amount. In addition, we limit program size for each client and purchase third-party reinsurance for our own account. In the case of our assumed proportional reinsurance treaties, we seek per occurrence limitations or loss and loss expense ratio caps to limit the impact of losses ceded by the client. In proportional reinsurance, the reinsurer shares a proportional part of the premiums and losses of the reinsured. We also seek to limit our loss exposure by geographic diversification. Geographic zone limitations involve significant underwriting judgments, including the determination of the area of the zones and the inclusion of a particular policy within a particular zones limits. Various provisions of our policies, such as limitations or exclusions from coverage or choice of forum negotiated to limit our risks, may not be enforceable in the manner we intend. As a result, one or more catastrophic or other events could result in claims that substantially exceed our expectations, which could have an adverse effect on our results of operations or financial condition.
We may be unable to purchase reinsurance, and if we successfully purchase reinsurance, we are subject to the possibility of non-payment.
We purchase reinsurance to protect against catastrophes, to increase the amount of protection we can provide our clients, and as part of our overall risk management strategy. Our reinsurance business also purchases some retrocessional protection. A retrocessional reinsurance agreement allows a reinsurer to cede to another company all or part of the reinsurance that was originally assumed by the reinsurer. A reinsurers or retrocessionaires insolvency or inability or unwillingness to make timely payments under the terms of its reinsurance agreement with us could have an adverse effect on us because we remain liable to the insured. From time to time, market conditions have limited, and in some cases have prevented, insurers and reinsurers from obtaining the types and amounts of reinsurance or retrocessional reinsurance that they consider adequate for their business needs.
There is no guarantee our desired amounts of reinsurance or retrocessional reinsurance will be available in the marketplace in the future. In addition to capacity risk, the remaining capacity may not be on terms we deem appropriate or acceptable or with companies with whom we want to do business. Finally, we face some degree of counterparty risk whenever we purchase reinsurance or retrocessional reinsurance. Consequently, the insolvency, inability, or unwillingness of any of our present or future reinsurers to make timely payments to us under the terms of our reinsurance or retrocessional agreements could have an adverse effect on us. At December 31, 2009, we had $13.6 billion of reinsurance recoverables, net of reserves for uncollectible recoverables.
As part of the restructuring of INA Financial Corporation and its subsidiaries that occurred in 1996, Insurance Company of North America (INA) was divided into two separate corporations: an active insurance company that retained the INA name and continued to write P&C business and an inactive run-off company, now called Century Indemnity Company (Century). The A&E exposures of substantially all of INAs U.S. P&C companies, now our subsidiaries, were either allocated to Century (as a result of the restructuring) or reinsured to subsidiaries of Brandywine, primarily Century. Certain of our subsidiaries are primar -
ily liable for A&E and other exposures they have reinsured to Century. As at December 31, 2009, the aggregate reinsurance balances ceded by our active subsidiaries to Century were $1.2 billion. Should Century experience adverse loss reserve development in the future and should Century be placed into rehabilitation or liquidation, the reinsurance recoverables due to Centurys affiliates would be payable only after the payment in full of certain expenses and liabilities, including administrative expenses and direct policy liabilities. Thus, the intercompany reinsurance recoverables would be at risk to the extent of the shortage of assets remaining to pay these recoverables. While we believe the intercompany reinsurance recoverables from Century are not impaired at this time, we cannot assure you that adverse development with respect to Centurys loss reserves, if manifested, will not result in Centurys insolvency, which could result in our recognizing a loss to the extent of any uncollectible reinsurance from Century.
Our net income may be volatile because certain products offered by our Life business expose us to reserve and fair value liability changes that are directly affected by market and other factors and assumptions.
Our pricing and valuation of life insurance and annuity products, including reinsurance programs, are based upon various assumptions, including but not limited to market changes, mortality rates, morbidity rates, and policyholder behavior. Significant deviations in actual experience from our pricing assumptions could have an adverse effect on the profitability of our products and our business.
Under reinsurance programs covering variable annuity guarantees, we assume the risk of guaranteed minimum death benefits (GMDB) and guaranteed minimum income benefits (GMIB) associated with variable annuity contracts. Our net income is directly impacted by changes in the reserves calculated in connection with the reinsurance of GMDB and GMIB liabilities. In addition, our net income is directly impacted by the change in the fair value of the GMIB liability. The reserve and fair value liability calculations are directly affected by market factors, including equity levels, interest rate levels, credit risk, and implied volatilities. The reserve and fair value liability calculations are also affected by assumptions about policyholder mortality and changes in policyholder behavior, most significantly withdrawal and annuitization. Significant changes in behavior as a result of policyholder reactions to market or economic conditions could be material. ACE views our variable annuity reinsurance business as having a similar risk profile to that of catastrophe reinsurance, with the probability of long-term economic loss relatively small at the time of pricing. Adverse changes in market factors and policyholder behavior will have an impact on both life underwriting income and net income. When evaluating these risks, we expect to be compensated for taking both the risk of a cumulative long-term economic net loss, as well as the short-term accounting variations caused by these market movements. Therefore, we evaluate this business in terms of its long-term economic risk and reward. Refer to the Critical Accounting Estimates Guaranteed minimum income benefits derivatives, under Item 7 and Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk Reinsurance of GMIB and GMDB guarantees, under Item 7A for more information.
A failure in our operational systems or infrastructure or those of third parties could disrupt business, damage our reputation, and cause losses.
ACEs operations rely on the secure processing, storage, and transmission of confidential and other information in its computer systems and networks. ACEs business depends on effective information systems and the integrity and timeliness of the data it uses to run its business. Our ability to adequately price products and services, to establish reserves, to provide effective and efficient service to our customers, and to timely and accurately report our financial results also depends significantly on the integrity of the data in our information systems. Although we take protective measures and endeavor to modify them as circumstances warrant, our computer systems, software, and networks may be vulnerable to unauthorized access, computer viruses or other malicious code, and other events that could have security consequences. If one or more of such events occur, this potentially could jeopardize ACEs or our clients or counterparties confidential and other information processed and stored in, and transmitted through, our computer systems and networks, or otherwise cause interruptions or malfunctions in ACEs, its clients, its counterparties, or third parties operations, which could result in significant losses or reputational damage. ACE may be required to expend significant additional resources to modify our protective measures or to investigate and remediate vulnerabilities or other exposures, and we may be subject to litigation and financial losses that are either not insured against or not fully covered by insurance maintained.
Despite the contingency plans and facilities we have in place, our ability to conduct business may be adversely affected by a disruption of the infrastructure that supports our business in the communities in which we are located, or of outsourced services or functions. This may include a disruption involving electrical, communications, transportation, or other services used by ACE. These disruptions may occur, for example, as a result of events that affect only the buildings occupied by ACE or as a result of events with a broader effect on the cities where those buildings are located. If a disruption occurs in one location and ACE employees in that location are unable to occupy its offices and conduct business or communicate with or travel to other
locations, our ability to service and interact with clients may suffer and we may not be able to successfully implement contingency plans that depend on communication or travel.
Employee error and misconduct may be difficult to detect and prevent and could adversely affect our business, results of operations, and financial condition.
Losses may result from, among other things, fraud, errors, failure to document transactions properly, failure to obtain proper internal authorization, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements. It is not always possible to deter or prevent employee misconduct and the precautions ACE takes to prevent and detect this activity may not be effective in all cases. Resultant losses could adversely affect our business, results of operations, and financial condition.
The integration of acquired companies may not be as successful as we anticipate.
Acquisitions involve numerous risks, including operational, strategic, and financial risks such as potential liabilities associated with the acquired business. Difficulties in integrating an acquired company may result in the acquired company performing differently than we currently expect or in our failure to realize anticipated expense-related efficiencies. Our existing businesses could also be negatively impacted by acquisitions.
Financial Strength and Debt Ratings
A decline in our financial strength ratings could affect our standing among brokers and customers and cause our premiums and earnings to decrease. A decline in our debt ratings could increase our borrowing costs and impact our ability to access capital markets.
Ratings have become an increasingly important factor in establishing the competitive position of insurance and reinsurance companies. The objective of these rating systems is to provide an opinion of an insurers financial strength and ability to meet ongoing obligations to its policyholders. Our financial strength ratings reflect the rating agencies opinions of our claims paying ability, are not evaluations directed to investors in our securities, and are not recommendations to buy, sell, or hold our securities. If our financial strength ratings are reduced from their current levels by one or more of these rating agencies, our competitive position in the insurance industry could suffer and it would be more difficult for us to market our products. A downgrade, therefore, could result in a substantial loss of business as insureds, ceding companies, and brokers move to other insurers and reinsurers with higher ratings. If one or more of our debt ratings were downgraded, we could also incur higher borrowing costs, and our ability to access the capital markets could be impacted. Additionally, we could be required to post collateral or be faced with the cancellation of premium in certain circumstances. Refer to Ratings, under Item 7.
We cannot give any assurance regarding whether or to what extent any of the rating agencies may downgrade our ratings in the future.
Loss of Key Executives
We could be adversely affected by the loss of one or more key executives or by an inability to attract and retain qualified personnel.
Our success depends on our ability to retain the services of our existing key executives and to attract and retain additional qualified personnel in the future. The loss of the services of any of our key executives or the inability to hire and retain other highly qualified personnel in the future could adversely affect our ability to conduct our business. This risk may be particularly acute for us relative to some of our competitors because many of our senior executives work in countries where they are not citizens, such as Bermuda, and work permit and immigration issues could adversely affect the ability to retain or hire key persons. We do not maintain key person life insurance policies with respect to our employees.
Brokers and Customers
Since we depend on a few brokers for a large portion of our revenues, loss of business provided by any one of them could adversely affect us.
We market our insurance and reinsurance worldwide primarily through insurance and reinsurance brokers. Marsh, Inc. and its affiliates and Aon Corporation and its affiliates provided approximately 13 percent and 11 percent, respectively, of our gross premiums written in 2009. Loss of all or a substantial portion of the business provided by one or more of these brokers could have a material adverse effect on our business.
Our reliance on brokers subjects us to credit risk.
In accordance with industry practice, we generally pay amounts owed on claims under our insurance and reinsurance contracts to brokers, and these brokers, in turn, pay these amounts over to the clients that have purchased insurance or reinsurance from us. Although the law is unsettled and depends upon the facts and circumstances of the particular case, in some jurisdictions, if a broker fails to make such a payment, we might remain liable to the insured or ceding insurer for the deficiency. Conversely, in certain jurisdictions, when the insured or ceding insurer pays premiums for these policies to brokers for payment over to us, these premiums might be considered to have been paid and the insured or ceding insurer will no longer be liable to us for those amounts, whether or not we have actually received the premiums from the broker. Consequently, we assume a degree of credit risk associated with brokers with whom we transact business. However, due to the unsettled and fact-specific nature of the law, we are unable to quantify our exposure to this risk. To date, we have not experienced any material losses related to these credit risks.
Certain of our policies subject us to credit risk from customers.
We offer high-deductible policies which are primarily provided in the workers compensation and certain general liability protection lines of our business. Under the terms of these policies, our customers are responsible for a set dollar amount per claim and/or an aggregate amount for all covered claims before we are ultimately liable. However, we may be required under such policies to pay third party claimants directly and then seek reimbursement for losses within the deductible from our customers. This subjects us to credit risk from these customers. While we generally seek to mitigate this risk through collateral agreements and maintain a provision for uncollectible accounts associated with this credit exposure, an increased inability of customers to reimburse us in this context could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. In addition, a lack of credit available to our customers could impact our ability to collateralize this risk to our satisfaction, which in turn, could reduce the amount of high-deductible policies we could offer.
Liquidity and Investments
Our investment performance may affect our financial results and ability to conduct business.
Our funds are invested by professional investment management firms under the direction of our management team in accordance with investment guidelines approved by the Finance and Investment Committee of the Board of Directors. Although our investment guidelines stress diversification of risks and conservation of principal and liquidity, our investments are subject to market risks, as well as risks inherent in individual securities. The volatility of our loss claims may force us to liquidate securities, which may cause us to incur capital losses. Realized and unrealized losses in our investment portfolio could significantly decrease our book value, thereby affecting our ability to conduct business. Recent investment market volatility, stock market declines, and fluctuations in credit spreads resulted in some cases in significant realized and unrealized losses in our investment portfolio. We experienced $2.9 billion of pre-tax realized and unrealized gains on our investment portfolio in 2009. The carrying value of our investment portfolio was $46.5 billion at December 31, 2009.
Financial markets events create greater risks relating to impairment of investments.
As a part of our ongoing analysis of our investment portfolio, we are required to assess whether the debt and equity securities we hold for which we have recorded an unrealized loss have been other-than-temporarily impaired. Refer to Note 4 under Item 8 and our disclosure for details and results of our analysis. This analysis requires a high degree of judgment and requires us to make certain assessments about the potential for recovery of the assets we hold. Declines in relevant stock and other financial markets could adversely affect our net income and other financial results, and may result in additional impairments.
We may be adversely affected by interest rate changes.
Our operating results are affected by the performance of our investment portfolio. Our investment portfolio contains fixed income investments and may be adversely affected by changes in interest rates. Volatility in interest rates could also have an adverse effect on our investment income and operating results. For example, if interest rates decline, funds reinvested will earn less than the maturing investment. Interest rates are highly sensitive to many factors, including inflation, monetary and fiscal policies, and domestic and international political conditions. Although we take measures to manage the risks of investing in a changing interest rate environment, we may not be able to effectively mitigate interest rate sensitivity. Our mitigation efforts include maintaining a high quality portfolio with a relatively short duration to reduce the effect of interest rate changes on book value. A significant increase in interest rates could have an adverse effect on our book value.
We may require additional capital or financing sources in the future, which may not be available or may be available only on unfavorable terms.
Our future capital and financing requirements depend on many factors, including our ability to write new business successfully and to establish premium rates and reserves at levels sufficient to cover losses, as well as our investment performance. We may need to raise additional funds through financings or access funds through existing or new credit facilities. We also from time to time seek to refinance debt or credit as amounts become due or commitments expire. Any equity or debt financing or refinancing, if available at all, may be on terms that are not favorable to us. In the case of equity financings, dilution to our shareholders could result, and in any case, such securities may have rights, preferences, and privileges that are senior to those of our Common Shares. Our access to funds under existing credit facilities is dependent on the ability of the banks that are parties to the facilities to meet their funding commitments. Also, recent consolidation in the banking industry could lead to increased reliance on and exposure to particular institutions. If we cannot obtain adequate capital or sources of credit on favorable terms, or at all, we could be forced to utilize assets otherwise available for our business operations, and our business, operating results, and financial condition could be adversely affected. It is possible that, in the future, one or more of the rating agencies may reduce our existing ratings. If one or more of our ratings were downgraded, we could incur higher borrowing costs and our ability to access the capital markets could be impacted.
We may be required to post additional collateral because of changes in our reinsurance liabilities to regulated insurance companies.
If our reinsurance liabilities increase, we may be required to post additional collateral for insurance company clients. In addition, regulatory changes sometimes affect our obligations to post collateral. Several such regulatory changes have been implemented or are currently under consideration, including changes related to variable annuity contracts. The need to post this additional collateral, if significant enough, may require us to sell investments at a loss in order to provide securities of suitable credit quality or otherwise secure adequate capital at an unattractive cost. This could adversely impact our net income and liquidity and capital resources.
Our investment portfolio includes below investment-grade securities that have a higher degree of credit or default risk which could adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.
Our fixed income portfolio is primarily invested in high quality, investment-grade securities. However, we invest a smaller portion of the portfolio in below investment-grade securities. At December 31, 2009, below investment-grade securities comprised approximately 13 percent of our fixed income portfolio. These securities, which pay a higher rate of interest, also have a higher degree of credit or default risk. These securities may also be less liquid in times of economic weakness or market disruptions. While we have put in place procedures to monitor the credit risk and liquidity of our invested assets, it is possible that, in periods of economic weakness (such as recession), we may experience default losses in our portfolio. This may result in a reduction of net income and capital.
Our operating results and shareholders equity may be adversely affected by currency fluctuations.
Our reporting currency is the U.S. dollar. Many of our non-U.S. companies maintain both assets and liabilities in local currencies. Therefore, foreign exchange risk is generally limited to net assets denominated in those foreign currencies. Foreign exchange risk is reviewed as part of our risk management process. Locally required capital levels are invested in home currencies in order to satisfy regulatory requirements and to support local insurance operations. The principal currencies creating foreign exchange risk are the British pound sterling, the euro, and the Canadian dollar. At December 31, 2009, approximately 19.8 percent of our net assets were denominated in foreign currencies. We may experience losses resulting from fluctuations in the values of non-U.S. currencies, which could adversely impact our results of operations and financial condition.
Regulatory and Other Governmental Developments
The regulatory and political regimes under which we operate, and their volatility, could have an adverse effect on our business.
Our insurance and reinsurance subsidiaries conduct business globally. Our businesses in each jurisdiction are subject to varying degrees of regulation and supervision. The laws and regulations of the jurisdictions in which our insurance and reinsurance subsidiaries are domiciled require, among other things, maintenance of minimum levels of statutory capital, surplus, and liquidity, various solvency standards, and periodic examinations of their financial condition. In some jurisdictions, laws and
regulations also restrict payments of dividends and reductions of capital. Applicable statutes, regulations, and policies may also restrict the ability of these subsidiaries to write insurance and reinsurance policies, to make certain investments, and to distribute funds. The purpose of insurance laws and regulations generally is to protect insureds and ceding insurance companies, not our shareholders.
The insurance industry is affected by political, judicial, and legal developments that may create new and expanded regulations and theories of liability. The current economic climate, the recent financial crisis, and in the U.S. the change in presidential administration in January 2009, present additional uncertainties and risks relating to increased regulation and the potential for increased involvement of the U.S. and other governments in the financial services industry. Efforts are underway in Washington, D.C. to create a new regulatory regime for financial services companies, and while it is not expected that the U.S. will adopt a fully functional federal regulator for insurance companies at this time, some proposed reforms regarding systemic risk oversight and resolution authority could impact the P&C industry. Moreover, the European Unions executive body, the European Commission, is implementing new capital adequacy and risk management regulations called Solvency II that would apply to our businesses across the European Union. In addition, regulators in countries where we have operations are working with the International Association of Insurance Supervisors (and in the U.S., with the NAIC) to consider changes to insurance company supervision, including solvency requirements and group supervision.
We may not be able to comply fully with, or obtain appropriate exemptions from, applicable statutes and regulations which could have an adverse effect on our business; as could changes in the laws and regulations that apply to us. Failure to comply with or to obtain appropriate authorizations and/or exemptions under any applicable laws and regulations could result in restrictions on our ability to do business or undertake activities that are regulated in one or more of the jurisdictions in which we conduct business and could subject us to fines and other sanctions.
Current legal and regulatory activities relating to insurance brokers and agents, contingent commissions, and certain finite-risk insurance products could adversely affect our business, results of operations, and financial condition.
Beginning in 2004, ACE received numerous regulatory inquiries, subpoenas, interrogatories, and civil investigative demands from regulatory authorities in connection with pending investigations of insurance industry practices. ACE is cooperating and will continue to cooperate with such inquiries. We cannot assure you that we will not receive any additional requests for information or subpoenas or what actions, if any, any of these governmental agencies will take as a result of these investigations. Additionally, at this time, we are unable to predict the potential effects, if any, that these actions may have upon the insurance and reinsurance markets and industry business practices or what, if any, changes may be made to laws and regulations regarding the industry and financial reporting. Any of the foregoing could adversely affect our business, results of operations, and financial condition.
Our operations in developing nations expose us to political developments that could have an adverse effect on our business, liquidity, results of operations, and financial condition.
Our international operations include operations in various developing nations. Both current and future foreign operations could be adversely affected by unfavorable political developments including law changes, tax changes, regulatory restrictions, and nationalization of ACE operations without compensation. Adverse actions from any one country could have an adverse effect on our business, liquidity, results of operations, and financial condition depending on the magnitude of the event and ACEs net financial exposure at that time in that country.
We may become subject to additional Swiss regulation.
The Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority, which we refer to as FINMA, has the discretion to supervise our group activities. Under so-called group supervision, FINMA has the right to supervise the Company on a group-wide basis. In March 2008, we received written confirmation from the Federal Office of Private Insurance (FOPI), a FINMA predecessor insurance supervising authority, that it does not intend to subject us to group supervision so long as certain business parameters within Switzerland are not exceeded. While we currently intend to operate within these parameters, we cannot assure you that our future business needs may not require that we exceed these parameters or that FINMA will not change these parameters or otherwise determine to exercise group supervision over us. The costs and administrative burdens of such group supervision could be substantial.
Our ability to pay dividends and to make payments on indebtedness may be constrained by our holding company structure.
ACE Limited is a holding company and does not have any significant operations or assets other than its ownership of the shares of its operating insurance and reinsurance subsidiaries. Dividends and other permitted distributions from our insurance subsidiaries are our primary source of funds to meet ongoing cash requirements, including any future debt service payments and other expenses, and to pay dividends to our shareholders. Some of our insurance subsidiaries are subject to significant regulatory restrictions limiting their ability to declare and pay dividends. The inability of our insurance subsidiaries to pay dividends in an amount sufficient to enable us to meet our cash requirements at the holding company level could have an adverse effect on our operations and our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders and/or meet our debt service obligations.
ACE Limited is a Swiss company; it may be difficult for you to enforce judgments against it or its directors and executive officers.
ACE Limited is incorporated pursuant to the laws of Switzerland. In addition, certain of our directors and officers reside outside the United States and all or a substantial portion of our assets and the assets of such persons are located in jurisdictions outside the United States. As such, it may be difficult or impossible to effect service of process within the United States upon those persons or to recover against us or them on judgments of U.S. courts, including judgments predicated upon civil liability provisions of the U.S. federal securities laws.
ACE has been advised by Niederer Kraft & Frey AG, its Swiss counsel, that there is doubt as to whether the courts in Switzerland would enforce:
judgments of U.S. courts based upon the civil liability provisions of the U.S. Federal securities laws obtained in actions against it or its directors and officers, who reside outside the United States; or
original actions brought in Switzerland against these persons or ACE predicated solely upon U.S. Federal securities laws.
ACE has also been advised by Niederer Kraft & Frey AG that there is no treaty in effect between the United States and Switzerland providing for this enforcement and there are grounds upon which Swiss courts may not enforce judgments of United States courts. Some remedies available under the laws of United States jurisdictions, including some remedies available under the U.S. Federal securities laws, would not be allowed in Swiss courts as contrary to that nations public policy.
As a result of the increase in par value of our shares that occurred in connection with our Continuation to Switzerland, we will have less flexibility with respect to certain aspects of capital management than previously.
In connection with our Continuation to Switzerland, we increased the par value of our shares. As of December 31, 2009, our par value is CHF 31.88 per share. Under Swiss law, we generally may not issue registered shares below their par value. In the event there is a need to raise common equity capital at a time when the trading price of our registered shares is below our par value, we will need to obtain approval of our shareholders to decrease the par value of our registered shares. We cannot assure you that we would be able to obtain such shareholder approval. Furthermore, obtaining shareholder approval would require filing a preliminary proxy statement with the SEC and convening a meeting of shareholders which would delay any capital raising plans. Furthermore, any reduction in par value would decrease our ability to pay dividends as a repayment of share capital which is not subject to Swiss withholding tax. See Taxation Shareholders may be subject to Swiss withholding taxes on the payment of dividends.
Insurance and Reinsurance Markets
Competition in the insurance and reinsurance markets could reduce our margins.
Insurance and reinsurance markets are highly competitive. We compete on an international and regional basis with major U.S., Bermuda, European, and other international insurers and reinsurers and with underwriting syndicates, some of which have greater financial, marketing, and management resources than we do. We also compete with new companies that continue to be formed to enter the insurance and reinsurance markets. In addition, capital market participants have created alternative products that are intended to compete with reinsurance products. Increased competition could result in fewer submissions, lower premium rates, and less favorable policy terms and conditions, which could reduce our margins.
Insurance and reinsurance markets are historically cyclical, and we expect to experience periods with excess underwriting capacity and unfavorable premium rates.
The insurance and reinsurance markets have historically been cyclical, characterized by periods of intense price competition due to excessive underwriting capacity as well as periods when shortages of capacity permitted favorable premium levels. An increase in premium levels is often offset by an increasing supply of insurance and reinsurance capacity, either by capital
provided by new entrants or by the commitment of additional capital by existing insurers or reinsurers, which may cause prices to decrease. Any of these factors could lead to a significant reduction in premium rates, less favorable policy terms, and fewer submissions for our underwriting services. In addition to these considerations, changes in the frequency and severity of losses suffered by insureds and insurers may affect the cycles of the insurance and reinsurance markets significantly, as could periods of economic weakness (such as recession).
Charter Documents and Applicable Law
There are provisions in our charter documents that may reduce the voting rights of our Common Shares.
Our Articles of Association generally provide that shareholders have one vote for each Common Share held by them and are entitled to vote at all meetings of shareholders. However, the voting rights exercisable by a shareholder may be limited so that certain persons or groups are not deemed to hold 10 percent or more of the voting power conferred by our Common Shares. Moreover, these provisions could have the effect of reducing the voting power of some shareholders who would not otherwise be subject to the limitation by virtue of their direct share ownership. Our Board of Directors may refuse to register holders of shares as shareholders with voting rights based on certain grounds, including if the holder would, directly or indirectly, formally, constructively or beneficially own (as described in Articles 8 and 14 of our Articles of Association) or otherwise control voting rights with respect to 10 percent or more of the registered share capital recorded in the commercial register. In addition, the Board of Directors shall reject entry of holders of registered shares as shareholders with voting rights in the share register or shall decide on their deregistration when the acquirer or shareholder upon request does not expressly state that she/he has acquired or holds the shares in her/his own name and for her/his account.
Applicable laws may make it difficult to effect a change of control of our company.
Before a person can acquire control of a U.S. insurance company, prior written approval must be obtained from the insurance commissioner of the state where the domestic insurer is domiciled. Prior to granting approval of an application to acquire control of a domestic insurer, the state insurance commissioner will consider such factors as the financial strength of the applicant, the integrity and management of the applicants Board of Directors and executive officers, the acquirers plans for the future operations of the domestic insurer, and any anti-competitive results that may arise from the consummation of the acquisition of control. Generally, state statutes provide that control over a domestic insurer is presumed to exist if any person, directly or indirectly, owns, controls, holds with the power to vote, or holds proxies representing 10 percent or more of the voting securities of the domestic insurer. Because a person acquiring 10 percent or more of our Common Shares would indirectly control the same percentage of the stock of our U.S. insurance subsidiaries, the insurance change of control laws of various U.S. jurisdictions would likely apply to such a transaction. Laws of other jurisdictions in which one or more of our existing subsidiaries are, or a future subsidiary may be, organized or domiciled may contain similar restrictions on the acquisition of control of ACE.
While our Articles of Association limit the voting power of any shareholder to less than 10 percent, we cannot assure you that the applicable regulatory body would agree that a shareholder who owned 10 percent or more of our Common Shares did not, because of the limitation on the voting power of such shares, control the applicable insurance subsidiary.
These laws may discourage potential acquisition proposals and may delay, deter, or prevent a change of control of the Company, including transactions that some or all of our shareholders might consider to be desirable.
U.S. persons who own our Common Shares may have more difficulty in protecting their interests than U.S. persons who are shareholders of a U.S. corporation.
Swiss corporate law, which applies to us, differs in certain material respects from laws generally applicable to U.S. corporations and their shareholders. These differences include the manner in which directors must disclose transactions in which they have an interest, the rights of shareholders to bring class action and derivative lawsuits, and the scope of indemnification available to directors and officers.
Anti-takeover provisions in our charter and corporate documents could impede an attempt to replace our directors or to effect a change of control, which could diminish the value of our Common Shares.
Our Articles of Association contain provisions that may make it more difficult for shareholders to replace directors and could delay or prevent a change of control that a shareholder might consider favorable. These provisions include a staggered Board of Directors and voting restrictions. These provisions may prevent a shareholder from receiving the benefit from any premium over the market price of our Common Shares offered by a bidder in a potential takeover. Even in the absence of an attempt to
effect a change in management or a takeover attempt, these provisions may adversely affect the prevailing market price of our Common Shares if they are viewed as discouraging takeover attempts in the future.
Shareholder voting requirements under Swiss law may limit the Companys flexibility with respect to certain aspects of capital management compared to what it had as a Cayman Islands company.
Swiss law allows our shareholders to authorize share capital which can be issued by our Board of Directors without shareholder approval but this authorization must be renewed by the shareholder every two years. Swiss law also does not provide as much flexibility in the various terms that can attach to different classes of stock as permitted in other jurisdictions. Swiss law also reserves for approval by shareholders many corporate actions over which our Board of Directors previously had authority. For example, dividends must be approved by shareholders. While we do not believe that Swiss law requirements relating to our capital management will have an adverse effect on the Company, we cannot assure you that situations will not arise where such flexibility would have provided substantial benefits to our shareholders.
Shareholders may be subject to Swiss withholding taxes on the payment of dividends.
Our dividends will generally be subject to a Swiss federal withholding tax at a rate of 35 percent. The tax must be withheld from the gross distribution, and be paid to the Swiss Federal Tax Administration. A U.S. holder that qualifies for benefits under the Convention between the United States of America and the Swiss Confederation for the Avoidance of Double Taxation with Respect to Taxes on Income, (U.S.-Swiss Tax Treaty), may apply for a refund of the tax withheld in excess of the 15 percent treaty rate (or for a full refund in the case of qualifying retirement arrangements). Payment of a dividend in the form of a par value reduction or qualifying paid-in capital reduction is not subject to Swiss withholding tax. We have previously obtained shareholder approval for dividends to be paid in the form of a reduction of our par value or qualifying paid-in capital and, subject to the requirements of our business and applicable law, we currently intend to continue to annually recommend to shareholders that they approve the payment of dividends in such form. We estimate we would be able to pay dividends in the form of a reduction of par value or qualifying paid-in capital, and thus exempt from Swiss withholding tax, for approximately 15-20 years after the Continuation. This range may vary depending upon changes in annual dividends, special dividends, fluctuations in U.S. dollar/Swiss franc exchange rates, increases/decreases in par value or qualifying paid-in capital, or changes or new interpretations to Swiss tax law or regulations. However, we cannot assure you that our shareholders will approve a reduction in par value or qualifying paid-in capital each year, that we will be able to meet the other legal requirements for a reduction in par value, or that Swiss withholding rules will not be changed in the future.
We may become subject to taxes in Bermuda after March 28, 2016, which may have an adverse effect on our results of operations and your investment.
The Bermuda Minister of Finance, under the Exempted Undertakings Tax Protection Act 1966 of Bermuda, as amended, has given ACE Limited and its Bermuda insurance subsidiaries a written assurance that if any legislation is enacted in Bermuda that would impose tax computed on profits or income, or computed on any capital asset, gain, or appreciation, or any tax in the nature of estate duty or inheritance tax, then the imposition of any such tax would not be applicable to those companies or any of their respective operations, shares, debentures, or other obligations until March 28, 2016, except insofar as such tax would apply to persons ordinarily resident in Bermuda or is payable by us in respect of real property owned or leased by us in Bermuda. Given the limited duration of the Minister of Finances assurance, we cannot be certain that we will not be subject to any Bermuda tax after March 28, 2016.
ACE Limited, our Bermuda-based management and holding company and our non-U.S. subsidiaries may become subject to U.S. tax, which may have an adverse effect on our results of operations and your investment.
ACE Limited, ACE Group Management & Holdings Ltd. and our non-U.S. subsidiaries, including ACE Bermuda Insurance Ltd., and ACE Tempest Life Reinsurance Ltd., operate in a manner so that none of these companies should be subject to U.S. tax (other than U.S. excise tax on insurance and reinsurance premium income attributable to insuring or reinsuring U.S. risks and U.S. withholding tax on some types of U.S. source investment income), because none of these companies should be treated as engaged in a trade or business within the United States. However, because there is considerable uncertainty as to the activities that constitute being engaged in a trade or business within the United States, we cannot be certain that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) will not contend successfully that ACE Limited or its non-U.S. subsidiaries are engaged in a trade or business in the United States. If ACE Limited or any of its non-U.S. subsidiaries were considered to be engaged in a trade or
business in the United States, such entity could be subject to U.S. corporate income and branch profits taxes on the portion of its earnings effectively connected to such U.S. business, in which case our results of operations and your investment could be adversely affected.
If you acquire 10 percent or more of ACE Limiteds shares, you may be subject to taxation under the controlled foreign corporation (the CFC) rules.
Under certain circumstances, a U.S. person who owns 10 percent or more of the voting power of a foreign corporation that is a CFC (a foreign corporation in which 10 percent U.S. shareholders own more than 50 percent of the voting power or value of the stock of a foreign corporation or more than 25 percent of a foreign insurance corporation) for an uninterrupted period of 30 days or more during a taxable year must include in gross income for U.S. federal income tax purposes such 10 percent U.S. Shareholders pro rata share of the CFCs subpart F income, even if the subpart F income is not distributed to such 10 percent U.S. Shareholder if such 10 percent U.S. Shareholder owns (directly or indirectly through foreign entities) any of our shares on the last day of our fiscal year. Subpart F income of a foreign insurance corporation typically includes foreign personal holding company income (such as interest, dividends, and other types of passive income), as well as insurance and reinsurance income (including underwriting and investment income) attributable to the insurance of risks situated outside the CFCs country of incorporation.
We believe that because of the dispersion of our share ownership, provisions in our organizational documents that limit voting power, and other factors, no U.S. person or U.S. partnership who acquires shares of ACE Limited directly or indirectly through one or more foreign entities should be required to include our subpart F income in income under the CFC rules of US tax law. It is possible, however, that the IRS could challenge the effectiveness of these provisions and that a court could sustain such a challenge, in which case your investment could be adversely affected if you own 10 percent or more of ACE Limiteds stock.
U.S. persons who hold shares may be subject to U.S. federal income taxation at ordinary income tax rates on their proportionate share of our Related Person Insurance Income (RPII).
If the RPII of any of our non-U.S. insurance subsidiaries (each a Non-U.S. Insurance Subsidiary) were to equal or exceed 20 percent of that companys gross insurance income in any taxable year and direct or indirect insureds (and persons related to those insureds) own directly or indirectly through foreign entities 20 percent or more of the voting power or value of ACE Limited, then a U.S. person who owns any shares of ACE Limited (directly or indirectly through foreign entities) on the last day of the taxable year would be required to include in its income for U.S. federal income tax purposes such persons pro rata share of such companys RPII for the entire taxable year. This amount is determined as if such RPII were distributed proportionately only to U.S. persons at that date regardless of whether such income is distributed. In addition, any RPII that is includible in the income of a U.S. tax-exempt organization may be treated as unrelated business taxable income. We believe that the gross RPII of each Non-U.S. Insurance Subsidiary did not in prior years of operation and is not expected in the foreseeable future to equal or exceed 20 percent of each such companys gross insurance income. Likewise, we do not expect the direct or indirect insureds of each Non-U.S. Insurance Subsidiary (and persons related to such insureds) to directly or indirectly own 20 percent or more of either the voting power or value of our shares. However, we cannot be certain that this will be the case because some of the factors which determine the extent of RPII may be beyond our control. If these thresholds are met or exceeded and if you are an affected U.S. person, your investment could be adversely affected.
U.S. persons who hold shares will be subject to adverse tax consequences if we are considered to be a Passive Foreign Investment Company (PFIC) for U.S. federal income tax purposes.
If ACE Limited is considered a PFIC for U.S. federal income tax purposes, a U.S. person who owns any shares of ACE Limited will be subject to adverse tax consequences, including subjecting the investor to a greater tax liability than might otherwise apply and subjecting the investor to tax on amounts in advance of when tax would otherwise be imposed, in which case your investment could be adversely affected. In addition, if ACE Limited were considered a PFIC, upon the death of any U.S. individual owning shares, such individuals heirs or estate would not be entitled to a step-up in the basis of the shares which might otherwise be available under U.S. federal income tax laws. We believe that we are not, have not been, and currently do not expect to become, a PFIC for U.S. federal income tax purposes. We cannot assure you, however, that we will not be deemed a PFIC by the IRS. If we were considered a PFIC, it could have adverse tax consequences for an investor that is subject to U.S. federal income taxation. There are currently no regulations regarding the application of the PFIC provisions to an insurance company. New regulations or pronouncements interpreting or clarifying these rules may be forthcoming. We cannot predict what impact, if any, such guidance would have on an investor that is subject to U.S. federal income taxation.
U.S. tax-exempt organizations who own our shares may recognize unrelated business taxable income.
A U.S. tax-exempt organization may recognize unrelated business taxable income if a portion of our insurance income is allocated to the organization. This generally would be the case if either we are a CFC and the tax-exempt shareholder is a 10 percent U.S. shareholder or there is RPII, certain exceptions do not apply, and the tax-exempt organization, directly or indirectly through foreign entities, owns any shares of ACE Limited. Although we do not believe that any U.S. persons or U.S. partnerships should be allocated such insurance income, we cannot be certain that this will be the case. Potential U.S. tax-exempt investors are advised to consult their tax advisors.
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and the European Union are considering measures that might encourage countries to increase our taxes.
A number of multilateral organizations, including the European Union and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) have, in recent years, expressed concern about some countries not participating in adequate tax information exchange arrangements and have threatened those that do not agree to cooperate with punitive sanctions by member countries. It is as yet unclear what these sanctions might be, which countries might adopt them, and when or if they might be imposed. We cannot assure you, however, that the Tax Information Exchange Agreements (TIEAs) that have been or will be entered into by Switzerland and Bermuda will be sufficient to preclude all of the sanctions described above, which, if ultimately adopted, could adversely affect us or our shareholders.
Changes in U.S. federal income tax law could adversely affect an investment in our shares.
Legislation is periodically introduced in the U.S. Congress intended to eliminate some perceived tax advantages of companies (including insurance companies) that have legal domiciles outside the United States but have certain U.S. connections. For example, HR 3424 has been introduced during the current 111th House, (although a companion bill has not been introduced in the Senate), that would effectively render cross border affiliate reinsurance by foreign-owned U.S. insurance/reinsurance companies uneconomical regardless of whether or not it is properly priced under the internationally accepted arms-length standard. If enacted, such a law could have an adverse impact on us or our shareholders. It is possible that other legislative proposals could emerge in the future that could have an adverse impact on us or our shareholders, including a tax proposal regarding affiliate reinsurance that has been included in the Presidents budget proposal.
There are currently no unresolved SEC staff comments regarding our periodic or current reports.
We maintain office facilities around the world including in North America, Europe (including our principal executive offices in Switzerland), Bermuda, Latin America, Asia, and the Far East. Most of our office facilities are leased, although we own major facilities in Hamilton, Bermuda and Philadelphia, U.S. Management considers its office facilities suitable and adequate for the current level of operations.
Our insurance subsidiaries are subject to claims litigation involving disputed interpretations of policy coverages and, in some jurisdictions, direct actions by allegedly-injured persons seeking damages from policyholders. These lawsuits, involving claims on policies issued by our subsidiaries which are typical to the insurance industry in general and in the normal course of business, are considered in our loss and loss expense reserves which are discussed in the P&C loss reserves discussion. In addition to claims litigation, we and our subsidiaries are subject to lawsuits and regulatory actions in the normal course of business that do not arise from or directly relate to claims on insurance policies. This category of business litigation typically involves, among other things, allegations of underwriting errors or misconduct, employment claims, regulatory activity, or disputes arising from our business ventures.
While the outcomes of the business litigation involving us cannot be predicted with certainty at this point, we are disputing and will continue to dispute allegations against us that are without merit and believe that the ultimate outcomes of the matters in this category of business litigation will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, future operating results, or liquidity, although an adverse resolution of a number of these items could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations in a particular quarter or fiscal year.
More information relating to legal proceedings is set forth in Note 10 f) to the Consolidated Financial Statements, under Item 8, which is hereby incorporated herein by reference.
No matters were submitted to a vote of stockholders during the fourth quarter of the fiscal year covered by this report.
EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF THE COMPANY
The table below sets forth the names, ages, positions, and business experience of the Executive Officers of the Company.
Evan G. Greenberg has been a director of ACE since August 2002. Mr. Greenberg was elected Chairman of the Board of Directors in May 2007. Mr. Greenberg was appointed to the position of President and Chief Executive Officer of ACE in May 2004, and in June 2003, was appointed President and Chief Operating Officer of ACE. Mr. Greenberg was appointed to the position of Chief Executive Officer of ACE Overseas General in April 2002. He joined ACE as Vice Chairman, ACE Limited, and Chief Executive Officer of ACE Tempest Re in November 2001. Prior to joining ACE, Mr. Greenberg was most recently President and Chief Operating Officer of American International Group (AIG), a position he held from 1997 until 2000.
Brian E. Dowd was appointed Vice Chairman of ACE Limited and ACE Group Holdings in May 2009. Mr. Dowd was appointed Chief Executive Officer of Insurance North America in May 2006. In January 2005, Mr. Dowd was named Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of ACE USA, Chairman of ACE Westchester and President of ACE INA Holdings Inc. From 2002 until 2005, Mr. Dowd was President and Chief Executive Officer of ACE Westchester. In January 2004, he was elected to the position of Office of the Chairman of ACE INA Holdings Inc. a position which Mr. Dowd currently holds along with that of President. Mr. Dowd served as Executive Vice President, ACE USA Property Division from 1999 through 2001 when he was appointed President, ACE Specialty P&C Group. Mr. Dowd joined ACE in 1995.
John W. Keogh joined ACE as Chief Executive Officer of ACE Overseas General in April 2006. Prior to joining ACE, Mr. Keogh served as Senior Vice President, Domestic General Insurance of AIG, and President and Chief Executive Officer of National Union Fire Insurance Company, AIGs member company that specializes in D&O and fiduciary liability coverages. Mr. Keogh joined AIG in 1986, and he had served in a number of senior positions there including as Executive Vice President of AIGs Domestic Brokerage Group, and as President and Chief Operating Officer of AIGs Lexington Insurance Company unit.
Philip V. Bancroft was appointed Chief Financial Officer of ACE in January 2002. For nearly twenty years, Mr. Bancroft worked for PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. Prior to joining ACE, he served as partner-in-charge of the New York Regional Insurance Practice. Mr. Bancroft had been a partner with PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP for 10 years.
Robert F. Cusumano was appointed General Counsel and Secretary of ACE in March 2005. Mr. Cusumano joined ACE from the international law firm of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, where he was a partner and a member of the firms Litigation Department from 2003 to 2005. From 1990 to 2003, Mr. Cusumano was a partner with the law firm of Simpson Thatcher and Bartlett.
Paul B. Medini was appointed Chief Accounting Officer of ACE in October 2003. For twenty-two years, Mr. Medini worked for PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. Prior to joining ACE, he served as a partner in their insurance industry practice.
(a) Our Common Shares (previous to the Continuation, known as Ordinary Shares), with a current par value of CHF 31.88 per share, have been listed on the New York Stock Exchange since March 25, 1993.
The following table sets forth the high and low closing sales prices of our Common Shares per fiscal quarter, as reported on the New York Stock Exchange Composite Tape for the periods indicated:
The last reported sale price of the Common Shares on the New York Stock Exchange Composite Tape on February 23, 2010, was $50.29.
(b) The approximate number of record holders of Common Shares as of February 23, 2010, was 3,697.
(c) The following table represents dividends paid per Common Share to shareholders of record on each of the following dates:
ACE Limited is a holding company whose principal source of income is investment income and dividends from its operating subsidiaries. The ability of the operating subsidiaries to pay dividends to us and our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders are each subject to legal and regulatory restrictions. The declaration and payment of future dividends will be at the discretion of the Board of Directors and will be dependent upon the profits and financial requirements of ACE and other factors, including legal restrictions on the payment of dividends and such other factors as the Board of Directors deems relevant. Refer to Item 1A and Item 7.
(d) The following table provides information with respect to purchases by the Company of its Common Shares during the three months ended December 31, 2009:
Issuers Purchases of Equity Securities
* For the three months ended December 31, 2009, this column represents the surrender to the Company of 11,152 Common Shares to satisfy tax withholding obligations in connection with the vesting of restricted stock issued to employees.
** As part of ACEs capital management program, in November 2001, the Companys Board of Directors authorized the repurchase of any ACE issued debt or capital securities, including Common Shares, up to $250 million. At December 31, 2009, this authorization had not been utilized.
(e) Set forth below is a line graph comparing the dollar change in the cumulative total shareholder return on the Companys Common Shares from December 31, 2004, through December 31, 2009, as compared to the cumulative total return of the Standard & Poors 500 Stock Index and the cumulative total return of the Standard & Poors Property-Casualty Insurance Index. The chart depicts the value on December 31, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009, of a $100 investment made on December 31 2004, with all dividends reinvested.
The following table sets forth selected consolidated financial data of the Company as of and for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, and 2005. These selected financial and other data should be read in conjunction with the Consolidated Financial Statements and related notes, under Item 8, and with Item 7. Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.
(1) Diluted earnings per share is calculated by dividing net income available to holders of Common Shares by weighted-average shares outstanding diluted.
(2) The loss and loss expense ratio is calculated by dividing the losses and loss expenses by net premiums earned excluding the Life segment premiums. Net premiums earned for the Life segment were $1.4 billion, $1.2 billion, $368 million, $274 million, and $248 million, for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, and 2005, respectively.
(3) The underwriting and administrative expense ratio is calculated by dividing the policy acquisition costs and administrative expenses by net premiums earned, excluding the Life segment.
(4) The combined ratio is the sum of the loss and loss expense ratio and the underwriting and administrative expense ratio.
(5) The net loss reserves to capital and surplus ratio is calculated by dividing the sum of the net unpaid losses and loss expenses and net future policy benefits for life and annuity contracts by shareholders equity.
The following is a discussion of our results of operations, financial condition, and liquidity and capital resources as of and for the year ended December 31, 2009. This discussion should be read in conjunction with the Consolidated Financial Statements and related notes, under Item 8 of this Form 10-K.
ACE Limited is the holding company of the ACE Group of Companies. ACE opened its business office in Bermuda in 1985 and continues to maintain operations in Bermuda. ACE Limited, which is headquartered in Zurich, Switzerland, and its direct and indirect subsidiaries (collectively, the ACE Group of Companies, ACE, the Company, we, us, or our) are a global insurance and reinsurance organization, with operating subsidiaries in more than 50 countries serving the needs of commercial and individual customers in more than 140 countries. We serve the property and casualty (P&C) insurance needs of businesses of all sizes in a broad range of industries. We also provide specialized insurance products such as personal accident, supplemental health and life insurance to individuals in select countries. At December 31, 2009, ACE had total assets of $78 billion and shareholders equity of $19.7 billion.
Our product and geographic diversification differentiates us from the vast majority of our competitors and has been a source of stability during periods of industry volatility. Our long-term business strategy focuses on sustained growth in book value achieved through a combination of underwriting and investment income. By doing so, we provide value to our clients and shareholders through the utilization of our substantial capital base in the insurance and reinsurance markets.
We are organized along a profit center structure by line of business and territory that does not necessarily correspond to corporate legal entities. Profit centers can access various legal entities, subject to licensing and other regulatory rules. Profit centers are expected to generate underwriting income and appropriate risk-adjusted returns. This corporate structure has facilitated the development of management talent by giving each profit centers senior management team the necessary autonomy within underwriting authorities to make operating decisions and create products and coverages needed by its target customer base. We are an underwriting organization and senior management is focused on delivering underwriting profit. We strive to achieve underwriting income by only writing policies which we believe adequately compensate us for the risk we accept.
As an insurance and reinsurance company, we generate gross revenues from two principal sources: premiums and investment income. Cash flow is generated from premiums collected and investment income received less paid losses and loss expenses, policy acquisition costs, and administrative expenses. Invested assets are substantially held in liquid, investment grade fixed income securities of relatively short duration. During the second quarter of 2009, we liquidated the majority of our publicly traded equity holdings and invested the proceeds in corporate bonds. A small portion of our assets are held in less liquid or higher risk assets in an attempt to achieve higher risk-adjusted returns. Claims payments in any short-term period are highly unpredictable due to the random nature of loss events and the timing of claims awards or settlements. The value of investments held to pay future claims is subject to market forces such as the level of interest rates, stock market volatility, and credit events such as corporate defaults. The actual cost of claims is also volatile based on loss trends, inflation rates, court awards, and catastrophes. We believe that our cash balance, our highly liquid investments, credit facilities, and reinsurance protection provide sufficient liquidity to meet unforeseen claim demands that might occur in the year ahead. Refer to Liquidity and Capital Resources.
Redomestication to Zurich, Switzerland
In July 2008, we transferred our domicile from the Cayman Islands to Zurich, Switzerland, our new jurisdiction of incorporation (the Continuation). In connection with the Continuation, we changed the currency in which the par value of our Ordinary Shares was stated from U.S. dollars to Swiss francs. Upon the effectiveness of the Continuation, our Ordinary Shares became Common Shares. All Common Shares are registered shares with a current par value of CHF 31.88 each.
Notwithstanding the change of the currency in which the par value of Common Shares is stated, we continue to use U.S. dollars as our reporting currency for preparing our Consolidated Financial Statements. For the foreseeable future, we expect to pay dividends as a repayment of share capital in the form of a reduction in par value or qualified paid-in capital, which is not subject to Swiss withholding tax. Refer to Liquidity for more information.
The Combined Insurance Acquisition
On April 1, 2008, ACE acquired all of the outstanding shares of Combined Insurance Company of America (Combined Insurance) and certain of its subsidiaries from Aon Corporation for $2.56 billion. Combined Insurance is an underwriter and distributor of specialty individual accident and supplemental health insurance products targeted to middle-income consumers
and small businesses in North America, Europe, Asia Pacific, and Latin America. ACE recorded the Combined Insurance acquisition using the purchase method of accounting. Our consolidated operating results include the results of Combined Insurance from April 1, 2008.
Investment in Assured Guaranty Ltd.
Assured Guaranty Ltd. (AGO), a Bermuda-based holding company, provides, through its operating subsidiaries, credit enhancement products to the public finance, structured finance, and mortgage markets. On July 1, 2009, AGO acquired Financial Security Assurance Holdings Ltd. from Dexia Holdings Inc., a subsidiary of Dexia S.A. The purchase price included approximately $546 million in cash and approximately 22.3 million AGO common shares, according to AGOs public filings. AGO financed the cash portion of the purchase price partly through a June 2009 issuance of 38.5 million common shares before the exercise of any overallotment option (June 2009 issuance), according to AGOs public filings. Prior to the June 2009 issuance, ACE included its investment in AGO in Investments in partially-owned insurance companies using the equity method of accounting. Effective with the June 2009 issuance, ACE was deemed to no longer exert significant influence over AGO for accounting purposes and accounts for the investment in AGO as an available-for-sale equity security. ACE accounted for AGOs June 2009 issuance, and resulting dilutive effect, as if we had sold a proportionate share of the investment. ACE recognized a realized loss of $57 million related to AGOs dilutive common share issuance. During the fourth quarter of 2009, ACE further reduced its ownership in AGO to approximately seven percent. At December 31, 2009, the fair value of ACEs investment in AGO was $283 million and $56 million of unrealized gain on this investment was reflected in Accumulated other comprehensive income. During the first quarter of 2010, we again reduced our interest in AGO and our current share of ownership is approximately three percent.
The improvement in industry capital during 2009 as a result of greater financial markets stability and lower catastrophe losses has resulted in more competitive market conditions. From a risk-reward perspective, we believe prices to be inadequate from an underwriting perspective in a number of lines of business and therefore industry profitability is under pressure. At ACE, we continue efforts to maintain strict underwriting discipline in order to ensure profitability currently and in the future. We are focused on continuing to build our capabilities expanding our product offerings, our underwriting and geographic presence, and special initiatives centered on certain customer segments and our distribution. We believe our financial strength, global presence and broad product offering, and our technical underwriting capability continue to attract business to our company. Policies submitted to us for quote were significantly higher in 2009, compared with 2008, as existing and prospective customers sought ACEs financial strength and underwriting capability. As a result, the number of accounts we bound were substantially higher in 2009, however because of our underwriting discipline, we wrote less new business. We are emphasizing renewal retention rates. Policy terms and conditions were relatively stable for the business we wrote, although there were increased requests for terms and conditions we found unacceptable.
Despite favorable foreign exchange movements in the fourth quarter of 2009, our revenues were adversely impacted by a strong U.S. dollar for the year. On a constant dollar basis, net premiums written increased three percent in our P&C business in 2009, primarily driven by growth in our North American and international retail franchises. These businesses benefited from our increased local and global presence which allowed us to take advantage of competitors weakness, despite the recessions impact on pricing and demand for coverage. We reported growth in lines where we believe more than price matters our relative financial strength compared to competitors continued to produce business gains, and we have also benefited from growth in those areas of the market that have experienced underwriting losses and prices have risen adequately thus creating opportunity for ACE.
Our Global Reinsurance business grew in 2009, with increases in both long-tail and short-tail lines, and benefited particularly from business written in the first half of the year when pricing was more favorable. With respect to market conditions at the January 1, 2010, renewal period, we observed a reduction in client demand and more supply as reinsurers were generally well capitalized as a result of the recovery of the financial markets and partly as a result of a lack of major catastrophes in 2009. As such, pricing decreased but continued to be sufficiently profitable, particularly for U.S. peak exposure. Pricing in non-catastrophe areas or lines of business continued to decrease moderately, creating greater pressure on already stressed profit margins. We wrote modestly less business during the January 1 renewal period in 2009, compared with 2008.
Our A&H business continues to be impacted by recession, although it stabilized in the fourth quarter on a constant dollar basis. The underlying long-term trends of a growing middle class in Latin America and Asia, where we have substantial presence and capability, will continue to favor this business. We believe that the impact of recession on our A&H business is transient and we expect it to diminish as we progress through 2010. During 2009, we focused on increasing our A&H distribution capabilities, particularly in the retail travel and corporate customer segments, without neglecting our direct response distribution network, in order for our product portfolio to remain balanced.
Critical Accounting Estimates
Our Consolidated Financial Statements include amounts that, either by their nature or due to requirements of accounting principles generally accepted in the U.S. (GAAP), are determined using best estimates and assumptions. While we believe that the amounts included in our Consolidated Financial Statements reflect our best judgment, actual amounts could ultimately materially differ from those currently presented. We believe the items that require the most subjective and complex estimates are:
unpaid loss and loss expense reserves, including long-tail asbestos and environmental (A&E) reserves;
future policy benefits reserves;
valuation of value of business acquired (VOBA) and amortization of deferred policy acquisition costs and VOBA;
the assessment of risk transfer for certain structured insurance and reinsurance contracts;
reinsurance recoverable, including a provision for uncollectible reinsurance;
the valuation of our investment portfolio and assessment of other-than-temporary impairments (OTTI);
the valuation of deferred tax assets;
the valuation of derivative instruments related to guaranteed minimum income benefits (GMIB) ; and
the valuation of goodwill.
We believe our accounting policies for these items are of critical importance to our Consolidated Financial Statements. The following discussion provides more information regarding the estimates and assumptions required to arrive at these amounts and should be read in conjunction with the sections entitled: Prior Period Development, Asbestos and Environmental and Other Run-off Liabilities, Reinsurance Recoverable on Ceded Reinsurance, Investments, Net Realized Gains (Losses), and Other Income and Expense Items.
Unpaid losses and loss expenses
Overview and key data
As an insurance and reinsurance company, we are required, by applicable laws and regulations and GAAP, to establish loss and loss expense reserves for the estimated unpaid portion of the ultimate liability for losses and loss expenses under the terms of our policies and agreements with our insured and reinsured customers. The estimate of the liabilities includes provisions for claims that have been reported but are unpaid at the balance sheet date (case reserves) and for future obligations on claims that have been incurred but not reported (IBNR) at the balance sheet date (IBNR may also include a provision for additional development on reported claims in instances where the case reserve is viewed to be potentially insufficient). Loss reserves also include an estimate of expenses associated with processing and settling unpaid claims (loss expenses). At December 31, 2009, our gross unpaid loss and loss expense reserves were $37.8 billion and our net unpaid loss and loss expense reserves were $25 billion. With the exception of certain structured settlements, for which the timing and amount of future claim payments are reliably determinable, our loss reserves are not discounted for the time value of money. In connection with such structured settlements, we carry net reserves of $76 million, net of discount.
The table below presents a roll-forward of our unpaid losses and loss expenses for the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008.
(1) Net of provision for uncollectible reinsurance
The process of establishing loss reserves for property and casualty claims can be complex and is subject to considerable uncertainty as it requires the use of informed estimates and judgments based on circumstances known at the date of accrual. The following table shows our total reserves segregated between case reserves (including loss expense reserves) and IBNR reserves at December 31, 2009 and 2008.
The following table segregates loss reserves by line of business including property and all other, casualty, and personal accident (A&H) at December 31, 2009 and 2008. In the table, loss expenses are defined to include unallocated and allocated loss adjustment expenses. For certain lines, in particular ACE International and ACE Bermuda products, loss adjustment expenses are partially included in IBNR and partially included in loss expenses.
The judgments used to estimate unpaid loss and loss expense reserves require different considerations depending upon the individual circumstances underlying the insured loss. For example, the reserves established for high excess casualty claims, A&E claims, claims from major catastrophic events, or the IBNR for our various product lines each require different assumptions and judgments to be made. Necessary judgments are based on numerous factors and may be revised as additional experience and other data become available and are reviewed, as new or improved methods are developed, or as laws change. Hence, ultimate loss payments may differ from the estimate of the ultimate liabilities made at the balance sheet date. Changes to our previous estimates of prior period loss reserves impact the reported calendar year underwriting results by worsening our reported results if the prior year reserves prove to be deficient or improving our reported results if the prior year reserves prove to be redundant. The potential for variation in loss reserves is impacted by numerous factors, which we discuss below.
We establish loss and loss expense reserves for our liabilities from claims for all of the insurance and reinsurance business that we write. For those claims reported by insureds or ceding companies to us prior to the balance sheet date, and
where we have sufficient information, our claims personnel establish case reserves as appropriate based on the circumstances of the claim(s), standard claim handling practices, and professional judgment. In respect of those claims that have been incurred but not reported prior to the balance sheet date, there is, by definition, limited actual information to form the case reserve estimate and reliance is placed upon historical loss experience and actuarial methods to project the ultimate loss obligations and the corresponding amount of IBNR. Furthermore, for our assumed reinsurance operation, Global Reinsurance, an additional case reserve may be established above the amount notified by the ceding company if the notified case reserve is judged to be insufficient by Global Reinsurances claims department (refer to Assumed reinsurance below).
We have actuarial staff within each of our operating segments who analyze loss reserves and regularly project estimates of ultimate losses and the required IBNR reserve. IBNR reserve estimates are generally calculated by first projecting the ultimate amount of expected claims for a product line and subtracting paid losses and case reserves for reported claims. The judgments involved in projecting the ultimate losses may include the use and interpretation of various standard actuarial reserving methods that place reliance on the extrapolation of actual historical data, loss development patterns, and industry data as needed. The estimate of the IBNR reserve also requires judgment by actuaries and management to reflect the impact of more contemporary, qualitative, and subjective factors. Among some of these factors that might be considered are changes in business mix or volume, changes in ceded reinsurance structures, reported and projected loss trends, inflation, the legal environment, and the terms and conditions of the contracts sold to our insured parties.
Typically, for each product line, one or more standard actuarial reserving methods may be used to estimate ultimate losses and loss expenses, and from these estimates a single actuarial central estimate is selected. Exceptions to the use of standard actuarial projection methods occur for individual claims of significance that require complex legal, claims, and actuarial analysis and judgment (for example, A&E account projections or high excess casualty accounts in litigation) or product lines where the nature of the claims experience and/or availability of the data prevent application of such methods. In addition, claims arising from catastrophic events require evaluations that do not utilize standard actuarial loss projection methods but are based upon our exposure at the time of the event and the circumstances of the catastrophe and its post-event impact.
Standard actuarial reserving methods
The standard actuarial reserving methods may include, but are not necessarily limited to, paid and reported loss development, expected loss ratio, and Bornhuetter-Ferguson methods. A general description of these methods is provided below. In the subsequent discussion on short- and long-tail business, reference is also made, where appropriate, to how consideration in method selection impacted 2009 results. In addition to these standard methods, we may use other recognized actuarial methods and approaches depending upon the product line characteristics and available data. To ensure that the projections of future loss emergence based on historical loss development patterns are representative of the underlying business, the historical loss and premium data is required to be of sufficient homogeneity and credibility. For example, to improve data homogeneity, we may group product line data further by similar risk attribute (e.g., geography, coverage such as property versus liability exposure, or origin year), project losses for these homogenous groups and then combine these results to provide the overall product line estimate. The premium and loss data are aggregated by origin year (e.g., the year in which the losses were incurred accident year or report year, for example) and annual or quarterly development periods. Implicit in the standard actuarial methods that we generally utilize is the need for two fundamental assumptions: first, the expected loss ratio for each origin year (i.e., accident, report, or underwriting) and second, the pattern by which losses are expected to emerge over time for each origin year.
The expected loss ratio for any particular origin year is selected after consideration of a number of factors, including historical loss ratios adjusted for intervening premium and loss trends, industry benchmarks, the results of policy level loss modeling at the time of underwriting, and other more subjective considerations for the product line and external environment as noted above. The expected loss ratio for a given origin year is initially established at the start of the origin year as part of the planning process. This analysis is performed in conjunction with underwriters and management. The expected loss ratio method arrives at an ultimate loss estimate by multiplying the expected ultimate loss ratio by the corresponding premium base. This method is most commonly used as the basis for the actuarial central estimate for immature origin periods on product lines where the actual paid or reported loss experience is not yet deemed sufficiently credible to warrant consideration in the selection of ultimate losses. The expected loss ratio for a given origin year may be modified over time if the underlying assumptions such as loss trend or premium rate changes differ from the original assumptions.
Our assumed paid and reported development patterns provide a benchmark against which the actual emerging loss experience can be monitored. Where possible, development patterns are selected based on historical loss emergence by origin year with appropriate allowance for changes in business mix, claims handling process, or ceded reinsurance that are likely to lead to a discernible difference between the rate of historical and future loss emergence. For product lines where the historical data
is viewed to have low statistical credibility, the selected development patterns also reflect relevant industry benchmarks and/or experience from similar product lines written elsewhere within ACE. This typically arises for relatively new product lines that have limited historical data or for high severity/low frequency portfolios where our historical experience exhibits considerable volatility and/or lacks credibility. The paid and reported loss development methods convert the assumed loss emergence pattern to a set of multiplicative factors which are then applied to actual paid or reported losses to arrive at an estimate of ultimate losses for each period. Due to their multiplicative nature, the paid and reported loss development methods magnify differences between actual and expected loss emergence. These methods tend to be utilized for more mature origin periods and for those portfolios where the loss emergence has been relatively consistent over time.
The Bornhuetter-Ferguson method is essentially a combination of the expected loss ratio method and the loss development method, under which the loss development method is given more weight as the origin year matures. This approach allows a logical transition between the expected loss ratio method which is generally utilized at earlier maturities and the loss development methods which are typically utilized at latter maturities. We usually apply this method using reported loss data although paid data may be used.
The applicability of actuarial methods will also be impacted by the attachment point of the policy or contract with the insured or ceding company. In the case of low attachment points typical of primary or working layer reinsurance, the experience tends to be more frequency driven. These product types allow for the standard actuarial methods to be used in determining loss reserve levels, as they often have a sufficient history and volume of claims experience to be credible. In the case of high attachment points typical of excess insurance or excess of loss reinsurance, the experience tends to be severity driven, as only a loss of significant size will enter the layer. For structured or unique contracts, most common to the financial solutions business (which we have considerably curtailed) and, to a lesser extent, our reinsurance business, we typically supplement the standard actuarial methods with an analysis of each contracts terms, original pricing information, subsequent internal and external analyses of the ongoing contracts, market exposures and history, and qualitative input from claims managers.
Determining managements best estimate
Our recorded reserves represent managements best estimate of the provision for unpaid claims as of the balance sheet date. We perform an actuarial reserve review for each product line and establish an actuarial central estimate at the reviews conclusion. The process to select the actuarial central estimate, when more than one estimate is available, may differ across product lines. For example, an actuary may base the central estimate on loss projections developed using an incurred loss development approach instead of a paid loss development approach when reported losses are viewed to be a more credible indication of the ultimate loss compared with paid losses. The availability of estimates by different projection techniques will depend upon the product line, the underwriting circumstances, and the maturity of the loss emergence. For a well-established product line with sufficient volume and history, the actuarial central estimate may be drawn from a weighting of paid and reported loss development and/or Bornhuetter-Ferguson methods. However, for a new long-tail product line for which we have limited data and experience or a rapidly growing line, the emerging loss experience may not have sufficient credibility to allow selection of loss development or Bornhuetter-Ferguson methods and reliance may be placed upon the expected loss ratio method until the experience matures.
Managements best estimate is developed from the actuarial central estimate after collaboration with actuaries, underwriting, claims, legal, and finance departments and culminates with the input of reserve committees. Each business unit reserve committee includes the participation of the relevant parties from actuarial, finance, claims, and unit senior management and has the responsibility for finalizing and approving the estimate to be used as managements best estimate. Reserves are further reviewed by ACE Limiteds Chief Actuary and its senior management. The objective of such a process is to determine a single estimate that we believe represents a better estimate than any other. Such an estimate is viewed by management to be the best estimate of ultimate loss settlements and is determined based on several factors including, but not limited to:
segmentation of data to provide sufficient homogeneity and credibility for loss projection methods;
extent of internal historical loss data, and industry information where required;
historical variability of actual loss emergence compared with expected loss emergence;
perceived credibility of emerged loss experience; and
nature and extent of underlying assumptions.
Management does not build in any specific provision for uncertainty.
We do not calculate ranges of loss reserve estimates for our individual loss reserve studies. Such ranges are generally not a true reflection of the potential difference between loss reserves estimated at the balance sheet date and the ultimate settlement value of losses. This is due to the fact that an actuarial range is developed based on known events as of the valuation date
whereas actual prior period development reported in subsequent consolidated financial statements relates in part to events and circumstances that were unknown as of the original valuation date. While we believe that our recorded reserves are reasonable and represent managements best estimate for each product line as of the current valuation date, future changes to our view of the ultimate liabilities are possible. A five percent change in our net loss reserves equates to $1.3 billion and represents six percent of shareholders equity at December 31, 2009. Historically, including A&E reserve charges, our reserves, at times, have developed in excess of 10 percent of recorded amounts. Refer to Analysis of Losses and Loss Expense Development, under Item 1, for a summary of historical volatility between estimated loss reserves and ultimate loss settlements.
We perform internal loss reserve studies for all product lines at least once a year; the timing of such studies varies throughout the year. Additionally, each quarter for most product lines, we review the emergence of actual losses relative to expectations. If warranted from findings in loss emergence tests, we will accelerate the timing of our product line reserve studies. Finally, loss reserve studies are performed annually by external third-parties and the findings are used to test the reasonability of our internal findings.
The time period between the date of loss occurrence and the final payment date of the ensuing claim(s) is referred to as the claim-tail. The following is a discussion of specific reserving considerations for both short-tail and long-tail product lines. In this section, we reference the nature of recent prior period development to give a high-level understanding of how these considerations translate through the reserving process into financial decisions. Refer to Consolidated Operating Results for more information on prior period development.
Short-tail and long-tail business
Short-tail business generally describes product lines for which losses are usually known and paid shortly after the loss actually occurs. This would include, for example, most property, personal accident, aviation hull, and automobile physical damage policies that are written by ACE. There are some exceptions on certain product lines or events (e.g., major hurricanes) where the event has occurred, but the final settlement amount is highly variable and not known with certainty for a potentially lengthy period. Due to the short reporting and development pattern for these product lines, our estimate of ultimate losses from any particular accident period responds quickly to the latest loss data. We typically assign credibility to methods that incorporate actual loss emergence, such as the paid and reported loss development and Bornhuetter-Ferguson methods, sooner than would be the case for long-tail lines at a similar stage of development for a given origin year. The reserving process for short-tail losses arising from catastrophic events typically involves the determination by the claims department, in conjunction with underwriters and actuaries, of our exposure and estimated losses immediately following an event and then subsequent revisions of the estimated losses as our insureds provide updated actual loss information.
For the 2009 origin year, the short-tail line loss reserves were typically established using the expected loss ratio method for the non-catastrophe exposures. Reserves were also established for losses arising on catastrophe activity during 2009. The underlying calculation for the non-catastrophe losses requires initial expected loss ratios by product line adjusted for actual experience during the 2009 calendar year. As previously noted, the derivation of initial loss ratios incorporates actuarial projections of prior years losses, past and expected future loss and exposure trends, rate adequacy for new and renewal business, and ceded reinsurance coverage and costs. We also considered our view of the impact of terms and conditions and the market environment, which by their nature tend to be more subjective relative to other factors. For our short-tail businesses taken as a whole, overall loss trend assumptions did not differ significantly relative to prior years. Because there is some degree of random volatility of non-catastrophe loss experience from year to year, we considered average loss experience over several years when developing loss estimates for the current accident year. Therefore, while there has been favorable loss development in recent years on non-catastrophe exposures, the effect of this favorable development on expected loss ratios for the current accident year is relatively small. Further, other considerations, such as rate reductions and broadening of terms and conditions in a competitive market somewhat offset the impact of recent favorable loss development.
In terms of prior accident years, the bulk of the changes made in the 2009 calendar year arose from origin years 2004-2008. Specifically, the Insurance North American, Insurance Overseas General, Global Reinsurance, and Life segments experienced $105 million, $115 million, $49 million, and $3 million of favorable prior period development, respectively, primarily due to lower than anticipated loss emergence on the 2004-2008 origin years. In the Insurance North American and Insurance Overseas General segments, these prior period movements were primarily the result of changes to the ultimate loss estimates for the 2004-2008 origin years in response to the latest reported loss data rather than any significant changes to underlying actuarial assumptions such as loss development patterns. In the Global Reinsurance segment, the prior period movements were primarily the result of changes to the ultimate loss estimates for the 2004-2007 origin years princi -
pally in response to the latest reported loss data, rather than any significant changes to underlying actuarial assumptions such as loss development patterns.
For a detailed analysis of changes in assumptions related to short-tail prior accident year reserves during calendar year 2009, refer to Prior Period Development.
Long-tail business describes lines of business for which specific losses may not be known for some period and claims can take significant time to report and settle/close. This includes most casualty lines such as general liability, D&O, and workers compensation. There are many factors contributing to the uncertainty and volatility of long-tail business. Among these are:
Our historical loss data and experience is sometimes too immature and lacking in credibility to rely upon for reserving purposes. Where this is the case, in our reserve analysis we rely on industry loss ratios or industry benchmark development patterns that we believe reflect the nature and coverage of the underwritten business and its future development, where available. For such product lines, actual loss experience may differ from industry loss statistics as well as loss experience for previous underwriting years;
The inherent uncertainty around loss trends, claims inflation (e.g., medical and judicial) and underlying economic conditions;
The inherent uncertainty of the estimated duration of the paid and reporting loss development patterns beyond the historical record requires that professional judgment be used in the determination of the length of the patterns based on the historical data and other information;
The inherent uncertainty of assuming that historical paid and reported loss development patterns for older origin years will be representative of subsequent loss emergence on recent origin years. For example, changes over time in the processes and procedures for establishing case reserves can distort reported loss development patterns or changes in ceded reinsurance structures by origin year can alter the development of paid and reported losses;
Loss reserve analyses typically require loss or other data be grouped by common characteristics in some manner. If data from two combined lines of business exhibit different characteristics, such as loss payment patterns, the credibility of the reserve estimate could be affected. Additionally, since casualty lines of business can have significant intricacies in the terms and conditions afforded to the insured, there is an inherent risk as to the homogeneity of the underlying data used in performing reserve analyses; and
The applicability of the price change data used to estimate ultimate loss ratios for most recent origin years.
As can be seen from the above, various factors are considered when determining appropriate data, assumptions, and methods used to establish the loss reserve for the long-tail product lines. These factors will also vary by origin year for given product lines. The derivation of loss development patterns from data and the selection of a tail factor to project ultimate losses from actual loss emergence require considerable judgment, particularly with respect to the extent to which historical loss experience is relied upon to support changes in key reserving assumptions. Examples of the relationship between changes in historical loss experience and key reserving assumptions are provided below.
For those long-tail product lines that are less claim frequency and more claim severity oriented, such as professional lines and high excess casualty, we placed more reliance upon expert legal and claims review of the specific circumstance underlying reported cases rather than loss development patterns. The assumptions used for these lines of business are updated over time to reflect new claim and legal advice judged to be of significance.
For the 2009 origin year, loss reserves were typically established through the application of individual product line expected loss ratios that contemplated assumptions similar in nature to those noted in the short-tail line discussion. Our assumptions on loss trend and development patterns reflect reliance on our historical loss data provided the length of history and homogeneity afford credibility. Given the recent growth on a number of product lines, such as general casualty and financial lines, our historical loss data is less extensive and our assumptions require judgmental use of industry loss trends and development patterns. We note that industry patterns are not always available to match the nature of the business being written; this issue is particularly problematic for non-U.S. exposed lines. Given the underlying volatility of the long-tail product lines and the lengthy period required for full paid and reported loss emergence, we typically assign little to no credibility to actual loss emergence in the early development periods. Accordingly, we generally used the expected loss ratio method for the 2009 and immediately preceding origin years to establish reserves by product line. We monitor actual paid and reported loss emergence relative to expected loss emergence for most individual product lines. Recent experience has generally been favorable relative to our expectations. While we do not yet believe that this favorable experience is sufficiently credible to be fully reflected in our booked ultimate losses for immature years, we have been giving increasing weight to emerging experience as origin years mature and the loss emergence gains credibility.
Given the nature of long-tail casualty business and related reserving considerations, for the major long-tail lines in Insurance North American, Insurance Overseas General, and Global Reinsurance, no changes of significance were made to the key actuarial assumptions for the loss trend (aside from changes to inflation assumptions), exposure trend, and loss development patterns used to establish the 2009 accident year reserves relative to prior accident years.
To the extent that actual loss emergence in calendar year 2009 differed from our expectation for the more recent origin years, the deviation was not typically seen as sufficiently credible, particularly given the volatility and lengthy period for full loss emergence, to fully reflect in our booked ultimate loss selections or the actuarial assumptions underlying the reserve reviews. Such judgments were made with due consideration to the factors impacting reserve uncertainty as discussed above. However, for some product lines, credibility was assigned to emerging loss experience and this is discussed further below and in the section entitled Prior Period Development. Our booked reserves for origin years 2007-2009 include reserves for what we believe to be our exposure to claims related to the credit-crunch and recent financial frauds (primarily E&O and D&O) based on information received to date.
For more mature accident years, typically 2005 and prior, we relied upon paid and reported loss development patterns for older origin years where sufficient credibility existed. For those lines where the historical experience lacked credibility, we placed reliance upon the latest benchmark patterns (where available) from external industry bodies such as Insurance Services Office (ISO) or the National Council on Compensation Insurance, Inc. (NCCI). Accordingly, the assumptions used to project loss estimates will not fully reflect our own actual loss experience until our data is deemed sufficiently credible.
The prior period development in 2009 for long-tail lines of business arose across a number of origin years in all segments. While there were a number of reasons for the 2009 development, the movements were generally the result of actual loss emergence in calendar year 2009 that differed notably from the expected loss emergence and where such deviations were deemed significant enough to warrant revising the projections for certain product lines. The nature of the changes to booked ultimate losses, and the associated impact on the prior origin years, varies by product line. For example, in Insurance North American, the changes to recorded estimates for foreign casualty products lines and ACE Financial Solutions business principally related to actual loss emergence that was lower than anticipated. This resulted in $42 million and $33 million of favorable development, respectively. Insurance North American also experienced $52 million of favorable development in national accounts loss sensitive business that resulted from a reduction in the estimates of retrospectively rated premiums and therefore resulted in corresponding decreases to premium-based estimates of ultimate losses. There was also $47 million of unfavorable development in Insurance North American Brandywine operations for accident years prior to 1999 in assumed reinsurance pools that resulted from the receipt of updated information on pool reserves, the adverse impact of recent activity on a litigated claim, and a 2009 audit finding. There was $211 million of favorable development in Insurance Overseas General for accident years 2005 and prior, primarily in casualty and financial lines. This development was principally due to actual loss experience that was lower than expected and an increase in the weight given experience based methods as these years mature. There was $93 million of favorable development in long-tail lines in Global Reinsurance mainly on treaty years 2003-2005. This development was principally due to actual loss experience that was lower than expected and an increase in the weight given experience based methods as these years mature.
For a detailed analysis of changes in assumptions related to long-tail prior accident year reserves during calendar year 2009, refer to Prior Period Development.
Sensitivity to underlying assumptions
While we believe that our reserve for unpaid losses and loss expenses at December 31, 2009, is adequate, new information or emerging trends that differ from our assumptions may lead to future development of losses and loss expenses significantly greater or less than the reserve provided, which could have a material effect on future operating results. As noted previously, our best estimate of required loss reserves for most portfolios is judgmentally selected for each origin year after considering the results from any number of reserving methods and is not a purely mechanical process. Therefore, it is difficult to convey, in a simple and quantitative manner, the impact that a change to a single assumption will have on our best estimate. In the examples below, we attempt to give an indication of the potential impact by isolating a single change for a specific reserving method that would be pertinent in establishing the best estimate for the product line described. We consider each of the following sensitivity analyses to represent a reasonably likely deviation in the underlying assumption.
Insurance North American
Given the long reporting and paid development patterns, the tail factors used to project actual current losses to ultimate losses for claims covered by four portfolios that represent the majority of our first dollar workers compensation exposure requires considerable judgment that could be material to consolidated loss and loss expense reserves. Specifically, when applying the reported loss development method, a one percent change in the tail factor (i.e., 1.04 changed to either 1.05 or 1.03) would
cause a change of approximately $100 million, either positive or negative, for the projected net loss and loss expense reserves. This is relative to recorded net loss and loss expense reserves of approximately $1 billion.
Our ACE Bermuda operations write predominantly high excess liability coverage on an occurrence-first-reported basis (typically with attachment points in excess of $325 million and gross limits of up to $150 million) and D&O and other professional liability coverage on a claims-made basis (typically with attachment points in excess of $125 million and gross limits of up to $50 million). Due to the layer of exposure covered, the expected frequency for this book is very low. As a result of the low frequency/high severity nature of the book, a small difference in the actual vs. expected claim frequency, either positive or negative, could result in a material change to the projected ultimate loss if such change in claim frequency was related to a policy where close to maximum limits were deployed.
Insurance Overseas General
Certain long-tail lines, such as casualty and professional lines, are particularly susceptible to changes in loss trend and claim inflation. Heightened perceptions of tort and settlement awards around the world are increasing the demand for these products as well as contributing to the uncertainty in the reserving estimates. Our reserving methods rely on loss development patterns estimated from historical data and while we attempt to adjust such factors for known changes in the current tort environment, it is possible that such factors may not entirely reflect all recent trends in tort environments. For example, when applying the reported loss development method, the lengthening by six months of our selected loss development patterns would increase reserve estimates on long-tail casualty and professional lines for accident years 2001-2007 by approximately $221 million. This movement is relative to recorded net IBNR reserves of approximately $1.4 billion for these years.
Typically, there is inherent uncertainty around the length of paid and reported development patterns, especially for certain casualty lines such as excess workers compensation or general liability, which may take up to 30 years to fully develop. This uncertainty is accentuated by the need to supplement client development patterns with industry development patterns due to the sometimes low credibility of the data. The underlying source and selection of the final development patterns can thus have a significant impact on the selected ultimate net losses and loss expenses. For example, a twenty percent shortening or lengthening of the development patterns used for U.S. long-tail lines would cause the loss reserve estimate derived by the reported Bornhuetter-Ferguson method for these lines to change by approximately $256 million. This movement is relative to recorded net loss and loss expense reserves of approximately $1.4 billion.
At December 31, 2009, net unpaid losses and loss expenses for the Global Reinsurance segment aggregated to $2.4 billion, consisting of $788 million of case reserves and $1.6 billion of IBNR. In comparison, at December 31, 2008, net unpaid losses and loss expenses for the Global Reinsurance segment aggregated to $2.5 billion, consisting of $836 million of case reserves and $1.7 billion of IBNR.
For catastrophe business, we principally estimate unpaid losses and loss expenses on an event basis by considering various sources of information, including specific loss estimates reported by our cedants, ceding company and overall industry loss estimates reported by our brokers, and our internal data regarding reinsured exposures related to the geographical location of the event. Our internal data analysis enables us to establish catastrophe reserves for known events with more certainty at an earlier date than would be the case if we solely relied on reports from third parties to determine carried reserves.
For our casualty reinsurance business, we generally rely on ceding companies to report claims and then use that data as a key input to estimate unpaid losses and loss expenses. Due to the reliance on claims information reported by ceding companies, as well as other factors, the estimation of unpaid losses and loss expenses for assumed reinsurance includes certain risks and uncertainties that are unique relative to our direct insurance business. These include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following:
The reported claims information could be inaccurate;
Typically, a lag exists between the reporting of a loss event to a ceding company and its reporting to us as a reinsurance claim. The use of a broker to transmit financial information from a ceding company to us increases the reporting lag. Because most of our reinsurance business is produced by brokers, ceding companies generally first submit claim and other financial information to brokers, who then report the proportionate share of such information to each reinsurer of a particular treaty. The reporting lag generally results in a longer period of time between the date a claim is incurred and the date a claim is reported compared with direct insurance operations. Therefore, the risk of delayed recognition of loss reserve development is higher for assumed reinsurance than for direct insurance lines; and
The historical claims data for a particular reinsurance contract can be limited relative to our insurance business in that there may be less historical information available. Further, for certain coverages or products, such as excess of loss contracts, there may be relatively few expected claims in a particular year so the actual number of claims may be susceptible to significant variability. In such cases, the actuary often relies on industry data from several recognized sources.
We mitigate the above risks in several ways. In addition to routine analytical reviews of ceding company reports to ensure reported claims information appears reasonable, we perform regular underwriting and claims audits of certain ceding companies to ensure reported claims information is accurate, complete, and timely. As appropriate, audit findings are used to adjust claims in the reserving process. We also use our knowledge of the historical development of losses from individual ceding companies to adjust the level of adequacy we believe exists in the reported ceded losses.
On occasion, there will be differences between our carried loss reserves and unearned premium reserves and the amount of loss reserves and unearned premium reserves reported by the ceding companies. This is due to the fact that we receive consistent and timely information from ceding companies only with respect to case reserves. For IBNR, we use historical experience and other statistical information, depending on the type of business, to estimate the ultimate loss. We estimate our unearned premium reserve by applying estimated earning patterns to net premiums written for each treaty based upon that treatys coverage basis (i.e., risks attaching or losses occurring). At December 31, 2009, the case reserves reported to us by our ceding companies were $768 million, compared with the $788 million we recorded. Our policy is to post additional case reserves in addition to the amounts reported by our cedants when our evaluation of the ultimate value of a reported claim is different than the evaluation of that claim by our cedant.
Within the Insurance North American segment, we also have exposure to certain liability reinsurance lines that have been in run-off since 1994. Unpaid losses and loss expenses relating to this run-off reinsurance business resides within the Brandywine Division of our Insurance North American segment. Most of the remaining unpaid loss and loss expense reserves for the run-off reinsurance business relate to A&E claims. (Refer to Asbestos and Environmental and Other Run-off Liabilities for more information.)
Asbestos and environmental reserves
Included in ACEs liabilities for losses and loss expenses are amounts for A&E (A&E liabilities). The A&E liabilities principally relate to claims arising from bodily-injury claims related to asbestos products and remediation costs associated with hazardous waste sites. The estimation of these liabilities is particularly sensitive to the recent legal environment, including specific settlements that may be used as precedents to settle future claims.
During 2009, ACE conducted its annual internal, ground-up review of its consolidated A&E liabilities as at December 31, 2008. As a result of the internal review, the Company increased its net loss reserves for the Brandywine operations, including A&E, by $44 million (net of reinsurance provided by National Indemnity Company (NICO)), while the gross loss reserves increased by $198 million. In addition, the Company decreased gross loss reserves for Westchester Specialtys A&E and other liabilities by $64 million, while the net loss reserves did not change. Our A&E reserves are not discounted for GAAP reporting and do not reflect any anticipated future changes in the legal, social or economic environment, or any benefit from future legislative reforms.
There are many complex variables that we consider when estimating the reserves for our inventory of asbestos accounts and these variables may directly impact the predicted outcome. We believe the most significant variables relating to our A&E reserves include assumptions regarding trends with respect to claim severity and the frequency of higher severity claims, the ability of a claimant to bring a claim in a state in which they have no residency or exposure, the ability of a policyholder to claim the right to non-products coverage, whether high-level excess policies have the potential to be accessed given the policyholders claim trends and liability situation, and payments to unimpaired claimants and the potential liability of peripheral defendants. Based on the policies, the facts, the law, and a careful analysis of the impact that these factors will likely have on any given account, we estimate the potential liability for indemnity, policyholder defense costs, and coverage litigation expense.
The results in asbestos cases announced by other carriers may well have little or no relevance to us because coverage exposures are highly dependent upon the specific facts of individual coverage and resolution status of disputes among carriers, policyholders, and claimants.
For more information refer to Asbestos and Environmental and Other Run-off Liabilities and to Note 7 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, under Item 8, for more information.
Future policy benefits reserves
We issue contracts in our Insurance Overseas General and Life segments that are classified as long-duration. These contracts generally include accident and supplemental health products, term and whole life products, endowment products, and annuities. In accordance with GAAP, we establish reserves for contracts determined to be long-duration based on approved
actuarial methods that include assumptions related to expenses, mortality, morbidity, persistency, and investment yields with a factor for adverse deviation. These assumptions are locked in at the inception of the contract meaning we use our original assumptions throughout the life of the policy and do not subsequently modify them unless we deem the reserves to be inadequate. The future policy benefit reserve balance is regularly evaluated for a premium deficiency. If experience is less favorable than assumptions, additional liabilities may be required, resulting in a charge to policyholder benefits and claims.
Valuation of value of business acquired (VOBA) and amortization of deferred policy acquisition costs and VOBA
As part of the Combined Insurance acquisition, we established an intangible asset related to VOBA, which represented the fair value of the future profits of the in-force contracts. The valuation of VOBA is derived from similar assumptions to those used to establish the associated future policy benefit reserve. The most significant input in this calculation is the discount rate used to arrive at the present value of the net cash flows. We amortize deferred policy acquisition costs associated with long-duration contracts and VOBA (collectively policy acquisition costs) over the estimated life of the contracts in proportion to premium revenue recognized. The estimated life is established at the inception of the contracts or upon acquisition and is based on current persistency assumptions. Policy acquisition costs are reviewed to determine if they are recoverable from future income, including investment income. If such costs are unrecoverable, they are expensed in the period this determination is made.
In the ordinary course of business, we both purchase (or cede) and sell (or assume) reinsurance protection. In 2002, as a matter of policy, we discontinued the purchase of all finite reinsurance contracts. For both ceded and assumed reinsurance, risk transfer requirements must be met in order to use reinsurance accounting, principally resulting in the recognition of cash flows under the contract as premiums and losses. If risk transfer requirements are not met, a contract is to be accounted for as a deposit, typically resulting in the recognition of cash flows under the contract through a deposit asset or liability and not as revenue or expense. To meet risk transfer requirements, a reinsurance contract must include both insurance risk, consisting of underwriting and timing risk, and a reasonable possibility of a significant loss for the assuming entity. We also apply similar risk transfer requirements to determine whether certain commercial insurance contracts should be accounted for as insurance or a deposit. Contracts that include fixed premium (i.e., premium not subject to adjustment based on loss experience under the contract) for fixed coverage generally transfer risk and do not require judgment.
Reinsurance and insurance contracts that include both significant risk sharing provisions, such as adjustments to premiums or loss coverage based on loss experience, and relatively low policy limits as evidenced by a high proportion of maximum premium assessments to loss limits, can require considerable judgment to determine whether or not risk transfer requirements are met. For such contracts, often referred to as finite or structured products, we require that risk transfer be specifically assessed for each contract by developing expected cash flow analyses at contract inception. To support risk transfer, the cash flow analyses must demonstrate that a significant loss is reasonably possible, such as a scenario in which the ratio of the net present value of losses divided by the net present value of premiums equals or exceeds 110 percent. For purposes of cash flow analyses, we generally use a risk-free rate of return consistent with the expected average duration of loss payments. In addition, to support insurance risk, we must prove the reinsurers risk of loss varies with that of the reinsured and/or support various scenarios under which the assuming entity can recognize a significant loss.
To ensure risk transfer requirements are routinely assessed, qualitative and quantitative risk transfer analyses and memoranda supporting risk transfer are developed by underwriters for all structured products. We have established protocols for structured products that include criteria triggering an accounting review of the contract prior to quoting. If any criterion is triggered, a contract must be reviewed by a committee established by each of our operating segments with reporting oversight, including peer review, from our global Structured Transaction Review Committee.
With respect to ceded reinsurance, we entered into a few multi-year excess of loss retrospectively-rated contracts, principally in 2002. These contracts principally provided severity protection for specific product divisions. Because traditional one-year reinsurance coverage had become relatively costly, these contracts were generally entered into to secure a more cost-effective reinsurance program. All of these contracts transferred risk and were accounted for as reinsurance. In addition, we maintain a few aggregate excess of loss reinsurance contracts that were principally entered into prior to 2003, such as the NICO contracts referred to in the section entitled, Asbestos and Environmental and Other Run-off Liabilities. Subsequent to the ACE INA acquisition, we have not purchased any retroactive ceded reinsurance contracts.
With respect to assumed reinsurance and insurance contracts, products giving rise to judgments regarding risk transfer were primarily sold by our financial solutions business. Although we have significantly curtailed writing financial solutions business, several contracts remain in-force and principally include multi-year retrospectively-rated contracts and loss portfolio transfers. Because transfer of insurance risk is generally a primary client motivation for purchasing these products, relatively
few insurance and reinsurance contracts have historically been written for which we concluded that risk transfer criteria had not been met. For certain insurance contracts that have been reported as deposits, the insured desired to self-insure a risk but was required, legally or otherwise, to purchase insurance so that claimants would be protected by a licensed insurance company in the event of non-payment from the insured.
A significant portion of ACE Tempest Re USAs business is written through quota share treaties (approximately $424 million of net premiums earned in 2009, comprised of $299 million of first dollar quota share treaties and $125 million of excess quota share treaties), a small portion of which are categorized as structured products. Structured quota share treaties typically contain relatively low aggregate policy limits, a feature that reduces loss coverage in some manner and a profit sharing provision. These have been deemed to have met risk transfer requirements.
Reinsurance recoverable includes the balances due to us from reinsurance companies for paid and unpaid losses and loss expenses and is presented net of a provision for uncollectible reinsurance. The provision for uncollectible reinsurance is determined based upon a review of the financial condition of the reinsurers and other factors. Ceded reinsurance contracts do not relieve our primary obligation to our policyholders. Consequently, an exposure exists with respect to reinsurance recoverable to the extent that any reinsurer is unable or unwilling to meet its obligations or disputes the liabilities assumed under the reinsurance contracts. We determine the reinsurance recoverable on unpaid losses and loss expenses using actuarial estimates as well as a determination of our ability to cede unpaid losses and loss expenses under existing reinsurance contracts.
The recognition of a reinsurance recoverable asset requires two key judgments. The first judgment involves our estimation based on the amount of gross reserves and the percentage of that amount which may be ceded to reinsurers. Ceded IBNR, which is a major component of the reinsurance recoverable on unpaid losses and loss expenses, is generally developed as part of our loss reserving process and, consequently, its estimation is subject to similar risks and uncertainties as the estimation of gross IBNR (refer to Critical Accounting Estimates Unpaid losses and loss expenses). The second judgment involves our estimate of the amount of the reinsurance recoverable balance that we may ultimately be unable to recover from reinsurers due to insolvency, contractual dispute, or for other reasons. Amounts estimated to be uncollectible are reflected in a provision that reduces the reinsurance recoverable asset and, in turn, shareholders equity. Changes in the provision for uncollectible reinsurance are reflected in net income.
Although the contractual obligation of individual reinsurers to pay their reinsurance obligations is based on specific contract provisions, the collectability of such amounts requires estimation by management. The majority of the balance we have accrued as recoverable will not be due for collection until sometime in the future, and the duration of our recoverables may be longer than the duration of our direct exposures. Over this period of time, economic conditions and operational performance of a particular reinsurer may impact their ability to meet these obligations and while they may continue to acknowledge their contractual obligation to do so, they may not have the financial resources or willingness to fully meet their obligation to us.
To estimate the provision for uncollectible reinsurance, the reinsurance recoverable must first be determined for each reinsurer. This determination is based on a process rather than an estimate, although an element of judgment must be applied. As part of the process, ceded IBNR is allocated to reinsurance contracts because ceded IBNR is not generally calculated on a contract by contract basis. The allocations are generally based on premiums ceded under reinsurance contracts, adjusted for actual loss experience and historical relationships between gross and ceded losses. If actual experience varies materially from historical experience, including that used to determine ceded premium, the allocation of reinsurance recoverable by reinsurer will change. While such change is unlikely to result in a large percentage change in the provision for uncollectible reinsurance, it could, nevertheless, have a material effect on our net income in the period recorded.
Generally, we use a default analysis to estimate uncollectible reinsurance. The primary components of the default analysis are reinsurance recoverable balances by reinsurer, net of collateral, and default factors used to estimate the probability that the reinsurer may be unable to meet its future obligations in full. The definition of collateral for this purpose requires some judgment and is generally limited to assets held in an ACE-only beneficiary trust, letters of credit, and liabilities held by us with the same legal entity for which we believe there is a right of offset. We do not currently include multi-beneficiary trusts. However, we have several reinsurers that have established multi-beneficiary trusts for which certain of our companies are beneficiaries. The determination of the default factor is principally based on the financial strength rating of the reinsurer and a corresponding default factor applicable to the financial strength rating. Default factors require considerable judgment and are determined using the current financial strength rating, or rating equivalent, of each reinsurer as well as other key considerations and assumptions. Significant considerations and assumptions include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following:
For reinsurers that maintain a financial strength rating from a major rating agency, and for which recoverable balances are considered representative of the larger population (i.e., default probabilities are consistent with similarly rated reinsurers and
payment durations conform to averages), the judgment exercised by management to determine the provision for uncollectible reinsurance of each reinsurer is typically limited because the financial rating is based on a published source and the default factor we apply is based on a default factor of a major rating agency applicable to the particular rating class. Default factors applied for financial ratings of AAA, AA, A, BBB, BB, B, and CCC, are 0.5 percent, 1.2 percent, 1.9 percent, 4.7 percent, 9.6 percent, 23.8 percent, and 49.7 percent, respectively. Because the model we use is predicated on the default factors of a major rating agency, we do not generally consider alternative factors. However, when a recoverable is expected to be paid in a brief period of time by a highly-rated reinsurer, such as certain property catastrophe claims, a default factor may not be applied;
For balances recoverable from reinsurers that are both unrated by a major rating agency and for which management is unable to determine a credible rating equivalent based on a parent, affiliate, or peer company, we determine a rating equivalent based on an analysis of the reinsurer that considers an assessment of the creditworthiness of the particular entity, industry benchmarks, or other factors as considered appropriate. We then apply the applicable default factor for that rating class. For balances recoverable from unrated reinsurers for which our ceded reserve is below a certain threshold, we generally apply a default factor of 25 percent;
For balances recoverable from reinsurers that are either insolvent or under regulatory supervision, we establish a default factor and resulting provision for uncollectible reinsurance based on specific facts and circumstances surrounding each company. Upon initial notification of an insolvency, we generally recognize expense for a substantial portion of all balances outstanding, net of collateral, through a combination of write-offs of recoverable balances and increases to the provision for uncollectible reinsurance. When regulatory action is taken on a reinsurer, we generally recognize a default factor by estimating an expected recovery on all balances outstanding, net of collateral. When sufficient credible information becomes available, we adjust the provision for uncollectible reinsurance by establishing a default factor pursuant to information received; and
For captives and other recoverables, management determines the provision for uncollectible reinsurance based on the specific facts and circumstances.
The following table summarizes reinsurance recoverables and the provision for uncollectible reinsurance for each type of recoverable balance at December 31, 2009.
At December 31, 2009, the use of different assumptions within our approach could have a material effect on the provision for uncollectible reinsurance reflected in our Consolidated Financial Statements. To the extent the creditworthiness of our reinsurers were to deteriorate due to an adverse event affecting the reinsurance industry, such as a large number of major catastrophes, actual uncollectible amounts could be significantly greater than our provision for uncollectible reinsurance. Such an event could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, and our liquidity. Given the various considerations used to estimate our uncollectible provision, we cannot precisely quantify the effect a specific industry event may have on the provision for uncollectible reinsurance. However, based on the composition (particularly the average credit quality) of the reinsurance recoverable balance at December 31, 2009, we estimate that a ratings downgrade of one notch for all rated reinsurers (i.e., from A to A- or A- to BBB+) could increase our provision for uncollectible reinsurance by approximately $167 million or approximately one percent of the reinsurance recoverable balance, assuming no other changes relevant to the calculation. While a ratings downgrade would result in an increase in our provision for uncollectible reinsurance and a charge to earnings in that period, a downgrade in and of itself does not imply that we will be unable to collect all of the ceded reinsurance recoverable from the reinsurers in question. Refer to Note 5 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, under Item 8, for more information.
Other-than-temporary impairments (OTTI)
Our fixed maturity investments are classified as either available for sale or held to maturity. Our available for sale portfolio is reported at fair value, refer to Note 15 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, under Item 8, for more information. The effect of market movements on our available for sale investment portfolio impacts net income (through net realized gains (losses)) when securities are sold or when we record an OTTI charge in net income (as discussed below).
We adopted provisions included in ASC Topic 320, Investments-Debt and Equity Securities, related to the recognition and presentation of OTTI as at April 1, 2009. Under these provisions, if we have the intent to sell an impaired fixed maturity security or it is more likely than not that we will be required to sell the security, an OTTI is considered to have occurred, and we are required to record the OTTI in net income. Further, in cases where we do not intend to sell the security and it is more likely than not that we will not be required to sell the security, we must evaluate the security to determine the portion of the impairment, if any, related to credit losses. If a credit loss is indicated, an OTTI is considered to have occurred and any portion of the OTTI related to credit losses must be reflected in net income while the portion of OTTI related to all other factors is included in other comprehensive income. For fixed maturities held to maturity, OTTI recognized in other comprehensive income is accreted from accumulated other comprehensive income to the amortized cost of the fixed maturity prospectively over the remaining term of the securities. These newly adopted provisions do not have any impact on the accounting for OTTI for any other type of investment.
Each quarter, we review our securities in an unrealized loss position (impaired securities), including fixed maturity securities, securities lending collateral, equity securities, and other investments, to identify those impaired securities to be specifically evaluated for a potential OTTI.
For impaired fixed maturities, if we have the intent to sell the security or it is more likely than not that we will be required to sell the security, an OTTI is considered to have occurred. In cases where we do not intend to sell the security and it is more likely than not that we will not be required to sell the security, we evaluate the security to determine if a credit loss has occurred based on a combination of qualitative and quantitative factors including a discounted cash flow model, where necessary. If a credit loss is indicated, an OTTI is considered to have occurred. Prior to the adopted provisions when evaluating fixed maturities for OTTI, we principally considered our ability and intent to hold the impaired security to the expected recovery period, the issuers financial condition, and our assessment (using available market information such as credit ratings) of the issuers ability to make future scheduled principal and interest payments on a timely basis. The factors that we now consider when determining if a credit loss exists related to a fixed maturity security are discussed in Note 4 d) to the Consolidated Financial Statements. All significant assumptions used in determining credit losses are subject to change as market conditions evolve.
We review all non-fixed maturity investments for OTTI based on the following:
the amount of time a security has been in a loss position and the magnitude of the loss position;
the period in which cost is expected to be recovered, if at all, based on various criteria including economic conditions and other issuer-specific developments; and
our ability and intent to hold the security to the expected recovery period.
As a general rule, we also consider that equity securities in an unrealized loss position for twelve consecutive months are impaired.
Because our investment portfolio is the largest component of consolidated assets and a multiple of shareholders equity, adverse changes in economic conditions subsequent to the balance sheet date could result in OTTI that are material to our financial condition and operating results. Such economic changes could arise from overall changes in the financial markets and specific changes to industries, companies, or foreign governments in which we maintain relatively large investment holdings.
Deferred tax assets
Many of our insurance businesses operate in income tax-paying jurisdictions. Our deferred tax assets and liabilities primarily result from temporary differences between the amounts recorded in our Consolidated Financial Statements and the tax basis of our assets and liabilities. We determine deferred tax assets and liabilities separately for each tax-paying component (an individual entity or group of entities that is consolidated for tax purposes) in each tax jurisdiction. The realization of deferred tax assets depends upon the existence of sufficient taxable income within the carryback or carryforward periods under the tax law in the applicable tax jurisdiction.
At December 31, 2009, our net deferred tax asset was $1.2 billion. (Refer to Note 8 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, under Item 8, for more information). At each balance sheet date, management assesses the need to establish a valuation allowance that reduces deferred tax assets when it is more likely than not that all, or some portion, of the deferred
tax assets will not be realized. The valuation allowance is based on all available information including projections of future taxable income from each tax-paying component in each tax jurisdiction, principally derived from business plans and available tax planning strategies. Projections of future taxable income incorporate several assumptions of future business and operations that are apt to differ from actual experience. The valuation allowance is also based on maintaining our ability and intent to hold our U.S. fixed maturities to recovery. If, in the future, our assumptions and estimates that resulted in our forecast of future taxable income for each tax-paying component prove to be incorrect, or future market events occur that prevent our ability to hold our U.S. fixed maturities to recovery, an additional valuation allowance could become necessary. This could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, and liquidity. At December 31, 2009, the valuation allowance of $34 million (including $24 million with respect to foreign tax credits) reflects managements assessment that it is more likely than not that a portion of the deferred tax asset will not be realized due to the inability of certain foreign subsidiaries to generate sufficient taxable income and the inability of ACE Group Holdings and its subsidiaries to utilize foreign tax credits.
Fair value measurements
We partially adopted the provisions (specific provisions described below) included in ASC Topic 820, Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures, on January 1, 2008. We fully adopted the provisions effective January 1, 2009. These provisions define fair value as the price to sell an asset or transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants and establishes a three level valuation hierarchy in which inputs into valuation techniques used to measure fair value are classified.
The fair value hierarchy gives the highest priority to quoted prices in active markets and the lowest priority to unobservable data. Inputs in Level 1 are unadjusted quoted prices for identical assets or liabilities in active markets. Level 2 includes inputs other than quoted prices included within Level 1 that are observable for assets or liabilities either directly or indirectly. Level 2 inputs include, among other items, quoted prices for similar assets and liabilities in active markets, quoted prices for identical or similar assets and liabilities in markets that are not active, and inputs other than quoted prices that are observable for the asset or liability such as interest rates and yield curves. Level 3 inputs are unobservable and reflect our judgments about assumptions that market participants would use in pricing an asset or liability. A financial instruments categorization within the valuation hierarchy is based upon the lowest level of input that is significant to the fair value measurement.
While the Company obtains values for the majority of the investment securities it holds from one or more pricing services, it is ultimately managements responsibility to determine whether the values obtained and recorded in the financial statements are representative of fair value. We periodically update our understanding of the methodologies used by our pricing services in order to validate that the prices obtained from those services are consistent with the GAAP definition of fair value as an exit price. Based on our understanding of the methodologies used by our pricing services, all applicable investments have been valued in accordance with GAAP valuation principles. We do not typically adjust prices obtained from pricing services.
At December 31, 2009, our Level 3 assets represented four percent of our assets that are measured at fair value and two percent of our total assets. Our Level 3 liabilities represented 13 percent of our liabilities that are measured at fair value and one percent of our total liabilities at December 31, 2009. During 2009, we transferred $55 million out of our Level 3 assets. Refer to Note 15 to the Consolidated Financial Statements for a description of the valuation measurements used for our financial instruments carried or disclosed at fair value by valuation hierarchy (Levels 1, 2, and 3) as well as a roll-forward of Level 3 financial instruments for the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008.
Guaranteed minimum income benefits (GMIB) derivatives
Under life reinsurance programs covering living benefit guarantees, we assume the risk of GMIBs associated with variable annuity (VA) contracts. Our GMIB reinsurance product meets the definition of a derivative for accounting purposes and is therefore carried at fair value. We believe that the most meaningful presentation of these derivatives is to reflect cash inflows or revenue as net premiums earned, and to record estimates of the average modeled value of future cash outflows as incurred losses. Accordingly, we recognize benefit reserves consistent with the provisions of ASC Topic 944, Financial Services-Insurance, related to accounting and reporting by insurance enterprises for certain non-traditional long-duration contracts and for separate accounts. Changes in the benefit reserves are reflected as policy benefits expense, which is included in life underwriting income. The incremental difference between fair value and benefit reserves is reflected in Accounts payable, accrued expenses, and other liabilities in the consolidated balance sheet and related changes in fair value are reflected in Net realized gains (losses) in the consolidated statement of operations. We intend to hold these derivative contracts to maturity (i.e., the expiration of the underlying annuities through lapses, annuitization, or death). At maturity, the cumulative gains and losses will
net to zero (excluding cumulative hedge gains or losses) because, over time, the insurance liability will be increased or decreased to equal our obligation. For a sensitivity discussion of the effect of changes in interest rates, equity indices and other assumptions on the fair value of GMIBs, and the resulting impact on our net income, refer to Item 7A. Refer to Note 2 j) to the Consolidated Financial Statements, under Item 8, for further description of this product and related accounting treatment.
The fair value of GMIB reinsurance is estimated using an internal valuation model which includes current market information and estimates of policyholder behavior from the perspective of a theoretical market participant. All of our treaties contain claim limits, which are factored into the valuation model. The fair value depends on a number of factors, including interest rates, current account value, market volatility, expected annuitization rates and other policyholder behavior, and changes in policyholder mortality. The model and related assumptions are continuously re-evaluated by management and enhanced, as appropriate, based upon additional experience obtained related to policyholder behavior and availability of more timely market information, such as market conditions and demographics of in-force annuities. Due to the inherent uncertainties of the assumptions used in the valuation models to determine the fair value of these derivative products, actual experience may differ from the estimates reflected in our Consolidated Financial Statements, and the differences may be material.
The most significant policyholder behavior assumptions include lapse rates and annuitization rates using the guaranteed benefit (GMIB annuitization rate). Assumptions regarding lapse rates and GMIB annuitization rates differ by treaty but the underlying methodology to determine rates applied to each treaty is comparable. The assumptions regarding lapse and GMIB annuitization rates determined for each treaty are based on a dynamic calculation that uses several underlying factors.
A lapse rate is the percentage of in-force policies surrendered in a given calendar year. All else equal, as lapse rates increase, ultimate claim payments will decrease. The GMIB annuitization rate is the percentage of policies for which the policyholder will elect to annuitize using the guaranteed benefit provided under the GMIB. All else equal, as GMIB annuitization rates increase, ultimate claim payments will increase, subject to treaty claim limits.
Key factors affecting the lapse rate assumption include investment performance and policy duration. We generally assume that lapse rates increase with policy duration with a significant increase in rates after the end of the surrender charge period. As investment performance of underlying fund investments declines, and guarantees become more valuable, lapse rates are anticipated to decrease thereby increasing the expected value of claims on minimum guarantees and thus, benefit reserves and the incremental fair value liability.
Key factors affecting the GMIB annuitization rate include investment performance and the level of interest rates after the GMIB waiting period. As investment performance of underlying fund investments declines, the monthly income available to a policyholder who annuitizes their account value falls; this makes the GMIB more valuable. As the GMIB becomes more valuable, our modeling assumes that annuitization rates will increase, resulting in higher benefit reserves and fair value liability. The same is true in an environment where long-term interest rates are decreasing.
Based on our quarterly reserve review, we increased our assumed GMIB annuitization rates for policies with deep in-the-money guarantees. In the aggregate, this change along with certain refinements of our model, increased our fair value liability by $28 million, which decreased net income accordingly.
During 2009, we recorded $368 million of realized gains for GMIB reinsurance, primarily due to a rising equity market and increased interest rate levels, partially offset by narrowing A-rated credit spreads (A-rated credit spreads are a proxy for ACEs own credit spreads) and the receipt of premium (which increases the fair value). This excludes realized losses of $363 million during 2009 on derivative instruments held to partially offset the risk in the variable annuity guarantee reinsurance portfolio. These derivatives do not receive hedge accounting treatment. Refer to Net Realized Gains (Losses) for a breakdown of the realized gains on GMIB reinsurance and the realized losses on the derivatives for 2009 and 2008.
ACE Tempest Life Re employs a strategy to manage the financial market and policyholder behavior risks embedded in the reinsurance of variable annuity guarantees. Risk management begins with underwriting a prospective client and guarantee design, with particular focus on protecting ACEs position from policyholder options that, because of anti-selective behavior, could adversely impact our obligation.
A second layer of risk management is the structure of the reinsurance contracts. All variable annuity guarantee reinsurance contracts include some form of annual or aggregate claim limit(s). The exact limits vary by contract but some examples of typical contract provisions include:
annual claim limits, as a percentage of reinsured account or guaranteed value, for GMDBs and GMIBs; and
annual annuitization rate limits, as a percentage of annuitization eligible account or guaranteed value, for GMIBs.
A third layer of risk management is the hedging strategy which is focused on mitigating long-term economic losses at a portfolio level. ACE Tempest Life Re owned financial market instruments as part of the hedging strategy with a fair value of $47 million and $280 million at December 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively. The instruments are substantially collateralized by our counterparties, on a daily basis.
We also limit the aggregate amount of variable annuity reinsurance guarantee risk we are willing to assume. The last substantive U.S. transaction was quoted in mid-2007 and the last transaction in Japan was quoted in late 2007. ACE Tempest Life Re did not quote on new or renewal variable annuity transactions in 2009 or 2008, and the aggregate number of policyholders is currently decreasing through policyholder withdrawals and deaths at a rate of 5-10 percent annually.
Note that GMIB claims cannot occur for any reinsured policy until it has reached the end of its waiting period. The vast majority of policies we reinsure reach the end of their waiting periods in 2013 or later, as shown in the table below.
The following table provides the historical cash flows under these policies for the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008.
The amounts represent accrued past premium received and claims paid, split by benefit type.
Death Benefits (GMDB)
For premiums and claims from variable annuity contracts reinsuring GMDBs, at current market levels we expect approximately $130 million of claims and $102 million of premium on death benefits over the next 12 months.
Living Benefits (includes GMIB and GMAB)
Premiums and claims from variable annuity contracts reinsuring predominantly GMIBs and Guaranteed Minimum Accumulation Benefits (GMAB) are collectively known as Living Benefits. Substantially all of our living benefit reinsurance clients policyholders are currently ineligible to trigger a claim payment. The vast majority of these policyholders begin to become eligible in 2013. At current market levels we expect approximately $1 million of claims and $151 million of premium on living benefits over the next 12 months.
At December 31, 2009, the capital required to support the variable annuity guaranty business was approximately $550 million. All else equal, any additional capital required as a result of a falling equity market would be approximately offset by the increase in the fair value of currently held hedge assets.
In order for its U.S.-domiciled clients to obtain statutory reserve credit, ACE Tempest Life Re holds collateral on behalf of its clients in the form of qualified assets in trust or letters of credit, in an amount sufficient for them to obtain statutory reserve credit. On December 31, 2009, a new statutory reserve guideline adopted by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners took effect in the U.S. called Actuarial Guideline 43 that governs statutory reserve calculation for variable annuity guarantees. In many cases this resulted in an increase to ceded statutory reserves from our U.S.-domiciled clients and the collateral ACE Tempest Life Re holds on their behalf. ACE Tempest Life Re has access to both letter of credit capacity and trustable assets that are sufficient (based on current estimates) to meet the funding requirements. The timing and amount of the calculation of the collateral varies by client according to the particulars of the reinsurance treaty and the statutory reserve guidelines of the clients state of domicile.
Approximately 64 percent of the GMDB guaranteed value has an annual claim limit expressed as two percent of the aggregate total account value reinsured. The remainder of the GMDB guaranteed value is covered under treaties with limits calculated on other bases either annual, aggregate, or at an individual policy level. The majority of this remainder has an annual limit calculated as a percentage of the total guaranteed value reinsured, with the percentage varying by contract from 0.22 percent to 1.8 percent.
Goodwill, which represents the excess of acquisition cost over the estimated fair value of net assets acquired, was $3.8 billion at December 31, 2009. The ACE INA and Combined Insurance acquisitions represent the majority of this balance. During 2009, our goodwill balance was increased by approxim