
run-off business
(Spring 2008) Time to reconsider reinsurance(Oct 2007) High court sanctions Ruxley acquisition of Generali unit(Oct 2007) Ruxley in landmark reinsurance-funded acquisition(Apr 2007) Ruxley in Generali run-off talks(Autumn 2006) Part VII business transfers - adding flexibility to the run-off equation(Spring 2006) Why we need a scheme monitor(Spring 2006) BAIC and after(Feb 2006) Solvent Schemes of Arrangement Conference(Nov 2005) Scheming for solvency(Oct 2005) A wake-up call(Sept 2005) Time To Wake Up(Sept 2005) Free Audio Conference: Rating the Raters(Aug/Sept 2005) Air Your Views(Aug 2005) Ruling could curtail solvent runoff schemes(March 2005) Tackling The Pools(Spring 2005) Selling like hot cakes(Spring 2005) The scheming solution(28/02/05) Influx of capital can impact premiums(Feb 05) Bringing finality to underwriting pools(Winter 04) Dangerous waters(04/11/04) Solvent schemes offer real boost(01/09/04) Buying Run-off(05/07/04) Run-off moves to another level(03/02/04) Run-off on a positive note(2004) 2003 A year of innovation(Winter 03) Ruxley buys Aviation & General(06/10/03) Ruxley takes whole of A&G(04/07/03) End of asbestos saga?(03/07/03) Ruxley closes APH book(Summer 03) Vulture Culture?
Pools with one or more members in run-off aren't necessarily hard to handle, especially if they are united and solvent. But if any participants become insolvent, then it can turn tricky, especially if it's an old pool, with dozens of members, poor records and outdated policy wordings.
Richard Finney, director of KMS Insurance Services, has long experience running off the Weavers pool and is in no doubt that unity and a clear strategy are essential: 'A unified run-off where the stamps remain together is the ideal scenario for a pool run-off.' This is best achieved, he says, either by keeping the original stamp together or agreeing a new management structure.
Probably the biggest obstacle to unity is insolvency. Most pools now in run-off date back to the 1950s, '60s and '70s, when they frequently had dozens, even hundreds, of members. Many wrote US casualty business exposing them to APH hazards, so insolvency is common. Once an insurer becomes insolvent, its priorities change and that can be bad news for any intra-pool fronting or other arrangements.
Mike Walker, partner at KPMG, explains: 'While everyone is solvent, it doesn't make much difference, as the pool's internal systems will deal with the payment of premium and claims. Where you get a real issue is where you have an insolvent member in a pool which has significant fronting.'
This potentially volatile mix of insolvency and fronting can raise questions, for example over cross guarantees, funding of letters of credit (LOCs) and future funding of the run-off manager, warns Walker: 'If there are fronting arrangements and there is an insolvent company in the pool, then it's going to be complex and difficult.'
Walker's experience is based on KPMG's role as scheme administrator for two companies with extensive pool participations: English and American Insurance Company (EAIC) and Sovereign Marine and General Insurance Company. He describes the associated pools as: 'very big, very complex, lots of fronting, lots of stamps, lots of underwriting years and lots of closed years.'
Walker agrees that unified management is an advantage when running off a pool, but does point out one potential downside: 'In attempting to reach a consensus, pool members may be able to block any strategy proposed by any particular pool company, and you may end up following the "slowest" company the most negative member because they effectively have a veto on everything. Inertia could result.'
Fortunately, he says, that is not a problem in the current climate: 'I suspect that in most pools there is a realisation that there has to be a solution. So we've not experienced that much negativity.'
One exception was the Rutty pool, which was at the centre of a dispute over reinsurance recoveries between North Atlantic Insurance Company and Nationwide General Insurance Company. This is the latest case concerning pools and the Court of Appeal ruling in April 2004 for the first time covered reinsurance. Lawyers believe it could have major implications for pools and the wider insurance industry.
William Sturge, a partner in Lawrence Graham's insurance and reinsurance group, says the ruling is not very sympathetic towards the pool concept: 'From a commercial point of view, it is sensible that when a fronting company has to pay out to the policyholder, the proceeds of the reinsurance that are triggered by that payment should be used to defray his liabilities. Effectively the court's decision is that the liquidator or one of the quota share companies can just make off with that sum.'
Part VII transfer
In stark contrast to the Rutty dispute is the run-off by Ruxley Investments of the Aviation & General pool. This involves only three companies Aviation & General, Prudential and Pearl all of which are solvent. To make it even more straightforward, Ruxley used a Part VII transfer to combine the pool business of all three before setting up a scheme of arrangement.
Simultaneously with the purchase of Aviation & General, Prudential and Pearl agreed to a Part VII transfer of their involvement in the pool to A&G. 'The key to Aviation & General's ability to put the company into a scheme of arrangement was its ability to put the pool together,' explains Ruxley managing director John Winter.
Winter predicts that the Aviation & General run-off, which had claims reserves of some £50 million when Ruxley acquired it in October 2003, should be completed in spring 2005. He agrees that represents an aggressive timetable, but points out that it is a solvent scheme and a single entity.
Winter adds: 'It would have been difficult, if not impossible, to have gone to the policyholders of Aviation & General and say, "we would like to do a scheme with 50 per cent of the liabilities". But because all pool entities had transferred to Aviation & General, we were able to say we were dealing with the full liability.'
In addition, Ruxley has a team dedicated to the project and sought policyholder agreement early on. 'We know that we need the policyholders to vote, so the last thing we want to do is irritate them. It's very much a consensual agreement with them,' he says.
As the Ruxley approach shows, both schemes and Part VII transfers can be very useful tools when running off pools. Winter describes the Part VII transfer as crucial for Ruxley and preferable to pool members agreeing to enter into a scheme managed by a common manager. 'We are hands on managers and in general I would be uncomfortable with that sort of arrangement. We would rather manage it ourselves as our liability.'
Finney agrees that a scheme is an excellent way of bringing finality to a run-off, regardless of whether it's solvent or insolvent. Timing, though, is very important in his opinion. 'You can't promote a scheme at a whim. It must be at the right time during the course of a particular company or pool run-off.'
Clarity and communication
Few pools are as straightforward as A&G, but that doesn't mean to say they can't be run-off. KMS, for example, has made steady headway since 1992 with running off the much larger and more complex Weavers pool, which includes the insolvent KWELM companies among others.
Over the last 14 years, KMS has assisted in the gradual consolidation of the Weavers pool. Initially faced with a situation where there was no unified management, KMS chose the next best option of communication, co-ordination and co-operation, says Finney.
This at least allows pool members and different run-off managers to pursue a consistent approach to claims and, most important of all, outwards reinsurance recoveries. On outwards reinsurance it is imperative that there is a co-ordinated strategy and approach, says Finney, 'because an easy excuse for any reinsurer not to pay a pool is to hide behind the fact that it is fragmented.'
A fragmented pool makes commutations harder too, since several parties will need to give their approval, all with possibly different strategies and expectations of the commutation value.
'Those companies still writing live business might not want to commute, because they want the reinsurers to be there to protect them for new business as well,' argues Finney. 'It can cause problems, which is why it is very important to have a clear strategy as to what the stamp is doing.'
Record keeping
Another challenge facing fragmented pools is record keeping, a critical aspect of any run-off, since accurate records underpin reinsurance recoveries. Pool members need to decide whether records are maintained separately or as Finney believes is preferable centrally, and in what format.
KMS is custodian of the Weavers records and spent several years reconstructing them getting hard copies of treaty agreements from outwards brokers for example before trying to collect money. 'We wanted to make sure we had a solid and sound platform to work from,' says Finney.
Walker agrees that unified records and common systems are vital for reinsurance recoveries: 'Otherwise how do you present your claims to the reinsurance market if you're not using the same credit control department or the same database or the same pool of information?'
Pool of experience Although running off pools affected by insolvency remains a challenge, the experience built up by companies like KMS is now available to others who end up in a similar situation to Weavers, says Finney. 'We think we can add benefit and value from assisting another pool if it were to go into run-off.'
However, the recent decline in the popularity of pools means that the problem may well diminish over time, anyway. As Walker points out, 'the old style pooling arrangements, with multiple participants and complex fronting over a huge number of years, are just not happening any more.'